The plaintiff purchased from the defendant five automobile conditional sales contracts, the defendant guaranteeing the payment of all unpaid installments. The automobiles, which had been sold to third parties on these contracts, were subsequently repossessed when the purchasers defaulted in their payments. It was agreed in writing by the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant should have possession of the automobiles and should assume all risk of loss or injury, but that title should remain in the plaintiff. Later the parties discussed the advisability of insuring the automobiles, and the plaintiff told the defendant not to have them insured as he would do so. In fact, neither party insured the automobiles. They were subsequently destroyed by fire. Plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the amounts remaining unpaid on the conditional sales contracts. It was held that the plaintiff could not recover because the plaintiff's promise to insure was enforcible under section 90 of the Restatement of the J:,aw of Contracts, and that this promise could best be enforced by placing the burden of the loss of the automobiles upon the plaintiff. Lusk-Harbison-Jones, Inc. v. Universal Credit Co., (Miss. 1933) 145 So. 623.
CONTRACTS - CONDITIONAL SALES - EFFECT OF ORAL PROMISE TO INSURE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol32/iss1/15