Childers & Venters, Inc. v. Sowards

Decision Date04 December 1970
Citation460 S.W.2d 343
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
Parties8 UCC Rep.Serv. 433 CHILDERS & VENTERS, INC., Appellant, v. B. F. SOWARDS, Appellee.

O. T. Hinton, Hinton, Hall & Todd, Pikeville, for appellant.

Francis Dale Burke, Pikeville, for appellee.

PALMORE, Judge.

The appellant, Childers & Venters, Inc., an automobile dealer, sold a used coal truck to the appellee, B. F. Sowards, for which Sowards executed a $3,060 promissory note due in 120 days and a conditional sales contract calling for the payment of $8,790.30 in 18 monthly installments. Childers & Venters negotiated the note to a local bank and the contract to General Motors Acceptance Corporation, both with recourse. Sowards made no payments on either obligation, the truck was sold by G.M.A.C., and Childers & Venters, after paying off the $3,060 note and a deficiency balance of $3,559.64 to G.M.A.C., brought this suit against Sowards. In his answer and counterclaim Sowards demanded that the complaint be dismissed and that he be awarded damages of $2,500, all upon the ground that the truck was defective and not as represented by Childers & Venters. The case was submitted to a jury, which returned the following verdict:

'From the evidence that the truck sold to the defendant was not as represented by the plaintiff, to the defendant, B. F. Sowards, at the time of the sale. We wish to relieve both parties of all indebtedness in this case.'

Childers & Venters appeals from a judgment dismissing the complaint and counterclaim pursuant to this verdict. Its chief contention is that its motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence should have been sustained. We agree.

The evidence leaves no doubt that Sowards got a bad bargain. However, he neither pleaded nor proved fraud on the seller's part, but relies on breach of warranty.

The conditional sales contract is on a printed form which begins as follows:

'The undersigned seller hereby sells, and the undersigned buyer or buyers, jointly and severally, hereby purchase(s), subject to the terms and conditions set forth below and upon the reverse side hereof, the following property * * *.'

The words, 'and upon the reverse side hereof,' are in darker print than the remainder thus quoted.

The signatures of Childers & Venters as the seller and Sowards as the buyer appear below on the face or front sheet of the agreement. The reverse side of the form is headed by the word 'PROVISIONS' in capital letters, followed by 11 numbered paragraphs. These 11 paragraphs are in the same size and color of print as the first line on the face of the contract except for paragraph 8, which is in larger and heavier type. Paragraph 8 appears at about the middle of the page. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

'It is mutually understood and agreed that: (a) there is no implied warranty of merchantability, no implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose and no implied warranty which extends beyond the description of said property on the face hereof * * *.'

The contract does not contain any express warranty of fitness.

Under KRS 355.2--315 there was an implied warranty of fitness (the seller knew the buyer's purpose was to use the truck for hauling coal) unless excluded under KRS 355.2--316. The latter section provides that 'to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous.' Sowards takes the position 'that exclusionary language can never be conspicuous within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code when it is printed on the back of the contract.'

According to KRS 355.1--201(10), a 'term or clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it. * * * Language in the body of a form is 'conspicuous' if it is in larger...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • Farmer v. International Harvester Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1976
    ...before this Court and we determine that the disclaimer of implied and express warranties was not conspicuous. See Childers & Venters, Inc. v. Sowards, 460 S.W.2d 343 (Ky.1970); George C. Christopher & Son, Inc. v. Kansas Paint & Color Co., Inc., supra. In view of our determination and holdi......
  • Myrtle Beach Pipeline Corp. v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. 3:86-1796-21.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • December 8, 1993
    ...out in a separate paragraph in large contrasting type — being in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS." Id. at 45. Likewise, in Childers & Venters, Inc. v. Sowards, 460 S.W.2d 343 (Ky.1970), the court enforced a disclaimer of implied warranties against a consumer by a corporate entity, even though the discl......
  • James T. Scatuorchio Racing Stable, LLC v. Walmac Stud Mgmt., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • April 19, 2013
    ...Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 3:06–CV–132–S, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79564, at *10–11 (W.D.Ky. Oct. 30, 2006) (quoting Childers & Venters, Inc. v. Sowards, 460 S.W.2d 343, 345 (Ky.1970)); see also Hopkinsville Motor Co. v. Massie, 228 Ky. 569, 15 S.W.2d 423, 424 (1929) (“Where the parties put their ......
  • Bruce v. ICI Americas, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • May 15, 1996
    ...710 (W.D.Pa.1989) (farmer who was presented disclaimer on box of herbicide but did not read it was bound by it); Childers & Venters, Inc. v. Sowards, 460 S.W.2d 343 (Ky.1970) (buyer of truck was bound by disclaimer where he was presented disclaimer on the contract but he did not read it bef......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT