Tappenden v. Artus

Facts

Anthony A. Tappenden (“Plaintiff”), a car dealer, contracted with William Artus to purchase of a van. The contract was an installation contract. Plaintiff authorized Artus to take possession of the van before to paid the full purchase price. Later, the van broke down, and Artus scheduled for the van’s repair with Rayleigh Garage Ltd. (“Defendant”). Defendant’s mechanics were not aware that Plaintiff was not the van’s owner. Artus did not Defendant for the van’s repairs. A short while after the van’s break down, Plaintiff withdrew his permission for Artus to be in possession of the van. Plaintiff located the van, and began demanding Defendant to return it. Subsequently, Defendant claimed a mechanic’s lien and refused to return Plaintiff the van until its receipt of payment for the repairs. Plaintiff brought suit against Artus and Defendant seeking the van’s return and damages. Plaintiff alleged that he never authorized the van’s repair. Rather, Plaintiff should have made the repairs himself because he was a mechanic. Defendant counterclaimed for a declaration on the grounds it had a mechanic’s lien on the van. The judge dismissed Defendant’s counterclaim, entered judgment for Plaintiff, and ordered Defendant to return the van to Plaintiff.Defendant appealed.