Bolton Ford of Mobile, Inc. v. Little
| Decision Date | 22 April 1977 |
| Citation | 344 So.2d 1208 |
| Parties | BOLTON FORD OF MOBILE, INC., a corp. v. Jerry F. LITTLE. SC 2002. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Erling Riis, Jr., Vickers, Riis, Murray & Curran, Mobile, for appellant.
Robert T. Cunningham, Jr., Cunningham, Bounds, Byrd, Yance & Crowder, Mobile, for appellee.
Plaintiff, Jerry F. Little, sued Bolton Ford of Mobile Inc., claiming that Bolton misrepresented that a 1973 Galaxie demonstrator sold to him had never been wrecked. A jury awarded him $12,000 compensatory and punitive damages. Bolton appealed.
The facts are essentially undisputed. When Bolton received the car in question in its inventory, it was new. It was later assigned as a 'demonstrator' to a salesman, who admittedly hit a curb and damaged the vehicle. There was evidence that the impact was hard enough to bend in the front bumper and fender, blow out two tires and bend the rim on the front wheel. The car was repaired in Bolton Ford's shop, an insurance claim was filed on it, by Bolton Ford, and it was later put on Bolton Ford's showroom as a 'demonstrator' with a speedometer reading of '3,412' miles.
Little testified that in November of 1973, he went to Bolton Ford and dealt with Walter Spragg, Bolton's salesman. He was told that the car was a demonstrator. He paid $3,900 for it. At the time the sale was being written up, Little said he asked Spragg if the car had been wrecked and Spragg said 'No.' Spragg denied knowing that the demonstrator had, in fact, been damaged in a wreck. Little determined that the car had, in fact, been in a wreck, but this discovery was some twenty-one months later, when another automobile backed into the right fender and the repairman told Little's mother that the car had sustained previous damages.
During the trial, Little testified that he would not have paid over $2,000 for the car if he had known it had been in a wreck. He said that he had to have the front end aligned several times and that he got fewer miles out of tires than he expected.
Bolton argues that since its salesman, Spragg, did not know that the car had been wrecked, buyer Little failed to prove the requisite elements of his action. We disagree. The evidence shows that several other agents of Bolton knew that the demonstrator had been in a wreck, and Bolton cannot escape liability merely because its salesman was not informed of the true facts. In J. Truett Payne Co. v. Jackson, 281 Ala. 426, 203 So.2d 443 (1967), the argument was made that the salesman there did not know where the car came from. This court opined: 'These are fact questions which the jury resolved in favor of the plaintiff.'
Bolton Ford also claims that the buyer failed to prove his compensatory damages. We disagree. The buyer paid $1,900 more than he would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Independent Life and Acc. Ins. Co. v. Harrington
...of the refunding policy. A principal cannot escape liability merely by failing to inform its agent of the facts. Bolton Ford of Mobile, Inc. v. Little, 344 So.2d 1208 (Ala.1977). Given these facts, we conclude that the jury's verdict was not Issue 10: The instruction, or failure to instruct......
-
Proctor Agency, Inc. v. Anderson
...the fraud is also gross, oppressive, or aggravated. D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 9.2, at 607 (1973). The court in Bolton Ford of Mobile, Inc. v. Little, 344 So.2d 1208 (Ala.1977), noted the importance of the defendant's "intent to deceive" when assessing the propriety of allowing punitive da......
-
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Waldrop
...to the other." The issue of whether the principal had knowledge of the true facts is for the jury to determine. Bolton Ford of Mobile, Inc. v. Little, 344 So.2d 1208 (Ala.1977); Shelter Modular Corp. v. Cardinal Enterprises, supra. Evidence was before the jury to support an inference that J......
-
Harris v. M & S Toyota, Inc.
...that a specific salesman was not aware of it. Leisure Resorts, Inc. v. Knutilla, 547 So.2d 424 (Ala.1989), and Bolton Ford of Mobile v. Little, 344 So.2d 1208 (Ala.1977). The knowledge of prior paint work constituted notice to Toyota City that it could not reasonably represent that the car ......