*1 any question. “Any fact or affirmation of dis- court So the erred promise by relating missing to the seller this action. warranty, goods express if the an is appellant. Reversed. Costs to affirmation tendency

natural of such buyer promise or is to induce CROCKÉTT, J., and C. buyer purchase if the goods, McDonough, callister, jj., purchases goods relying thereon. concur. No affirmation of the value of any purporting goods, statement opinion

be a statement of the seller’s

only, a war- shall be considered as

ranty.” intended to Although section was this

apply goods sale of not neces- to the CO., CONTINENTAL BANK TRUST sarily to the of real sale Respondent, erty, rely both and defendant quote provisions thereof, different Bunce, Charles CUNNINGHAM and Winford applied as the facts of this case it Appellants. Defendants and pro- accurate statement of law. any promise express war- vides that ranty tendency if the natural thereof Court of Utah. party it induce to enter induce and does June there basis

into such transaction. So is no representa- respondents’ claim that the plaintiffs could not be tions made hap-

warranty they involve the because

pening of future events.

After study careful plaintiffs’

showing, arewe satisfied that rep if the made,

resentations claimed were they would support sufficientto finding of fact that warranty,

(cid:127)there was a and if so

be entitled to recover. Plaintiffs were

therefore finding entitled to a of fact on *2 Moab,

Harry Snow, Bentley, E. Maxwell City, appellants. Lake for Salt Kent Albert Colton and (of Shearer J. Clendenin), Salt Lake City, Fabian respondent. sented that he redeem the wanted to Justice. erty. personal pay- Pie offered his dismiss- summary judgment Appeal from able on amount due for the Affirmed.

ing defendants’ counterclaim. plaintiff, by exchange assignment for an plaintiff. Costs to the latter The mortgage. of its by a sec- secured on a note Plaintiff sued bargain consummated, the bank retain- funds executed to obtain ond ing delivering but property. motel improve defendants’ Hancock,1 the written motel was encumbered if understanding that Hancock were bank. another property, redeeming unsuccessful dif- financial historized counterclaim reversal instruments operation ficulties incident plan mate- effected. Hancock’s collect inability to *3 as to defendants’ 31, 1958, January rialize. On defendants contract. time on a from their vendees pay offered to off the note and clear provision to a The contract contained them mortgagee given because the first con- then pleading off encumbrances. beyond the a chance for a limited time 1958, 8, plaintiff January that on cluded redemption period the to retrieve con- corrupt fraudulent a “entered into by paying extinguished the then first mort- Hancock, one spiracy agreement” with gage debt, elimination and conditioned on mort- assignment of where note, mortgage of the second but were ad- re- Hancock could that made so gage was previous assignment of the Han- vised to defendants preclude the motel deem their cock. After defendants made offer to to them money coming the receiving from 31, pay January was on no renewal thereof Use of purchasers. the from finally ever made. Plaintiff recovered the rules demonstrated the under procedure Hancock note from and returned his to in out not borne was conclusion such that him. fact. It seems that instead of being a de the that developed indicated Facts plaintiff conspirator, good frauder used that foreclosed and had been mortgage appeared what peddling sense business past was due. by plaintiff

the 8, 1958, redeem, January a worthless note and be collateral in to day to last theOn bank, recoup chance repre- probable hour to a plaintiff eleventh stranger to Hancock, prevent legally a argument not was no would transfer that there effective 1. Defendants’ rights under the note with in accordance negotiation of the separate mortgage by a Code instrument in provisions Utah Title the Annotated, writing. true, 1953, may but that be McDONOUGH, ALLIS- WADE, Cand a note paper for its exchanging loss TER, JJ., concur. loss. prevented such may have allega That the .counterclaim’s (concurring CROCKETT, Chief Justice de the facts with tions were inconsistent specially). discovery process veloped under impressed the contention am with not issue a fact was finding that there impel a chicanery in engaged in bank an arbiter presented to that must have been with an Hancock making to Utah 56(c), Rule of the facts. Under purpose cheating defendants. ulterior Procedure, having to do Rules Civil to a engage It could in such transaction pleaded the facts summary judgment, kept protect to its own interests. a some created situation the counterclaim redemption period on that the mind disappears presumption thing akin by First foreclosure of the first indisputable or admitted production of on Security expired Bank had ex permits an The rule facts. antithetical Bank’s securi- Plaintiff Continental pleading. If facts dis beyond the cursion ty in hazard on its second disprove irrefutably journey covered arrangement appears and its with Hancock appro summary judgment is pleaded, facts have been in an effort to save itself The rule has therefor. motion priate on loss. articulately by emi interpreted more been subject2 sug on the who question gives authorities me con- sole nent whether, irrespective assign- pierce cern permits us the rule gest Bank judgment, ment the Continental resulting in pleading, obliged accept payment developed of their under was of facts examination if an *4 affidavit, depo they claim procedure, debt the defendants tendered on like, ap makes it that connection and In sition, admission pre important of fact is think it to note the defendants genuine issue no pear prior beyond point notice of the travel to Han- To- sentable. cock; further, time, energy cost. that when the waste tender be a pro made Continental reminded designedly seeks eliminate defend- rule fact, expediting this and issues advised them to traction, get ants absent possible con Hancock. area where There in an touch no indica- litigation they so; point nor up they the truism that did tion calendars ten- gested justice delayed denied. dered debt justice renewed it , p. Holtzoff, seq.; Moore, & & Sec. 96 et Fed.Prac. 2. 3 Barron Fed.Prac. Proc. pp. 56.04(1) 2028-30. Par. appear Nor it made to to Continental. actually redeemed, or were ever redeem, property position

in a Security. First mortgage foreclosure reasons, I concur these

For and dis- in favor

judgment counterclaim.

missing the defendants’ UTAH, OF ROAD COMMISSION

STATE Appellant, COMPANY, a cor-

UTAH LIGHT POWER Company, Supply poration, Fuel Mountain corporation, States The Mountain Telegraph Company, Telephone a cor- Respondents. poration, Defendants Court Utah.

May 26, 1960.