Bedwell Lumber Co., Inc. v. T & T Corp.
Decision Date | 30 May 1980 |
Citation | 386 So.2d 413 |
Parties | BEDWELL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. T & T CORPORATION et al. 79-199. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert F. Vargo of Brantley & Vargo, Bay Minette, for appellants.
Thomas W. Underwood, Jr. of Chason & Underwood, Foley, for appellee T & T Corp.
Charles C. Simpson, III of Owens & Simpson, Bay Minette, for appellee A. N. D., Inc., d/b/a Baldwin Real Estate Agency.
This appeal, from a judgment based on a jury verdict for the Plaintiff on a fraud claim, under § 6-5-101, Code 1975, presents a sufficiency of the evidence issue. We affirm.
That the evidence of record amply supports the verdict is demonstrated in the following brief evidentiary recitation supportive of Plaintiff's claim: Plaintiff T & T Corporation, a land developer, through its president Harris C. Grant, offered to purchase 17 lots, plus certain undeveloped land, from Defendant Bedwell Lumber Company, dealing exclusively through Bedwell's agent, Ms. White, of the Baldwin Real Estate Agency. The remaining lots within the subdivision had been sold previously and several of these purchasers had built homes thereon. Before the "closing," Mr. Grant telephoned Ms. White and expressed his concern about the "percolation of the lots." Ms. White replied that Mr. Bedwell at that very moment was in her office and she would ask him whether the lots would support septic tanks. Mr. Bedwell told her (and she, in turn, told Mr. Grant) that the platted lots had been approved for septic tanks, but he was not sure about the acreage.
Within a few days after the closing of the sale, Mr. Grant told Ms. White that several of the lots would not percolate. When Ms. White related this to Mr. Bedwell, he told her to have Mr. Grant contact Hand Engineering "to see what the problem was." Pursuant thereto, Hand reaffirmed its earlier finding, made on behalf of Bedwell at the time the subdivision was platted, that 5 of the 17 lots here involved failed to meet percolation tests and recommended curative action.
Upon receipt of a claim letter from Mr. Grant, Mr. Bedwell asked Ms. White to request Hand "to do whatever was necessary," which she did. Hand performed, or supervised the performance of, the corrective work, including tons of fill dirt and bulldozing, for a total cost of $17,081.04, which Bedwell refused to pay.
We have strained at the record and Appellant's brief in an effort to discern a viable issue for appellate review. Appellant's strongest position may be summarized as follows: Admitting that the evidence, though disputed, supports a finding of misrepresentation with respect to the percolation quality of the lots, Appellant insists:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham
...In doing so, this Court had permitted the reliance element that had been developed in commercial transactions (Bedwell Lumber Co. v. T & T Corp., 386 So.2d 413 (Ala.1980)) to tread 'into the arena of consumer transactions.' Southern States Ford, 541 So.2d at 1090. Chief Justice Hornsby, in ......
-
Pace v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co.
...421 (Ala.1997) ). “[W]here a party has reason to doubt the representation ..., he has no right to act thereon.” Bedwell Lumber Co. v. T & T Corp. , 386 So.2d 413, 415 (Ala.1980).Plaintiff testified that he chose not to pursue a potential job lead at Cotton States after his conversation with......
-
Jones v. Mill
...deceive, but also that his reliance was reasonable." Reynolds v. Mitchell, 529 So.2d 227, 231 (Ala.1988) (citing Bedwell Lumber, Inc. v. T & T Corp., 386 So.2d 413 (Ala.1980)).McCutchen Co. v. Media Gen., Inc., 988 So. 2d 998, 1002 (Ala. 2008). Similarly, the court has stated:To establish a......
-
Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor
...person who exercised ordinary care would have discovered the true facts, the plaintiffs should not recover. Bedwell Lumber Co. v. T & T Corporation, 386 So.2d 413, 415 (Ala.1980). " 'If the purchaser blindly trusts, where he should not, and closes his eyes where ordinary diligence requires ......