Kuberski v. REV Recreation Group, Inc.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s verdict in favor of defendant-manufacturer of recreational vehicle (R.V.) purchased by plaintiff in action alleging that defendant had breached warranty that required that defendant repair defects in R.V. Record showed that: (1) defendant had reported over 40 significant defects, and that retail dealer of said R.V. serviced R.V. seven times over two-year period; (2) plaintiff sent letter to defendant demanding that defendant buy back instant $160,000 R.V. or exchange it for properly working replacement model; and (3) defendant offered to pay plaintiff to transport R.V. to defendant to make additional repairs, but plaintiff ultimately refused said offer and filed instant lawsuit. While plaintiff argued that Dist. Ct. gave jury instruction that improperly required that he show literal compliance with terms of warranty, any error in giving said instruction was harmless, since plaintiff had failed to give defendant opportunity to cure any defects. Ct. further noted that had plaintiff allowed defendant to fix defects in R.V. and defendant had failed to cure defects, plaintiff would have been entitled to pursue his breach of warranty claim.