OPINION ISSUED AUGUST 10, 1987
SURSHEL C. LACY
VS.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION
(CC-87-111)
Claimant appeared in person.
Robert D. Pollitt, Assistant Attorney General, for the respondent.
PER CURIAM:
On November 2, 1985, claimant attended a public auction of the
West
Virginia Department of
Finance and Administration, Surplus Property Division. He bid on a
1976
GMC pickup truck.
His bid was accepted, and he paid $725.00 for the vehicle. He drove
the
truck to his home in
Ravenswood on November 13, 1985. subsequently, he determined that
the
truck had a cracked
motor block which he alleges was a defect in the vehicle at the
time of
purchase. He seeks
$1,151.29.
Claimant testified that he is an automobile mechanic. He did not
have
the opportunity to
inspect this vehicle before he bought it. He alleges that
respondent
attempted to cover the crack
in the motor block with epoxy. He used the interstate on the trip
back
to Ravenswood, and did
not experience any problems with the truck. On that day. he changed
the
oil. In March of 1986
he drove the truck to and from a motor service garage. Other than
these
two instances, he has
moved the truck only to cut the grass. He stated that he did not
put the
epoxy on the manifold of
the truck.
Mr. Roy Headley, Shop Foreman for Motor Service Garage in
Ravenswood,
testified that he
has been a mechanic for twenty-three years. He inspected claimant's
vehicle on March 24, 1986
and observed that someone had use epoxy to seal a crack in the
motor
block. It appeared to
Mr. Headley that the epoxy had been placed there to cover up a
crack in
the block. He
estimated that the cost of putting a rebuilt motor in the GMC truck
is
$976.80. He was unable to
state whether the epoxy substance could have been placed on the
motor
block for a period of
more than four months or five months.
George Afflerbach, Director of the Department of Finance and
Administration's Surplus
Property Division, testified that during the week prior to an
auction,
the public is given the
opportunity to inspect everything that is for sale. He stated that
his
staff does not repair vehicles
unless somebody demonstrates an interest in a particular vehicle
and it
would help to sell the
vehicle. His agency did not make any repairs to the vehicle in
question,
such as placing epoxy
upon the block.
Anthony Nichols, mechanic with the Surplus Property Agency,
testified
that it is rare for him to
do an inspection or repair of the vehicles for the auctions. He
estimates that approximately 800
vehicles a year come through Surplus Property for sale. To his
knowledge, he has not repaired
any cracked blocks in engines on vehicles placed for sale by
Surplus
Property.
The Court, in good conscience, cannot deny this claim. although
there
has been no evidence
showing that respondent was aware of the crack in the manifold of the
vehicle which it sold, a
crack was present at the time of sale. To deny this claim, the
Court
would permit unjust
enrichment. The Court is of the opinion to, and hereby, awards the
claimant the amount paid for
the vehicle, $725.00.
Award of $725.00.