Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., LOGAN-DEES
| Decision Date | 08 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | LOGAN-DEES,CHEVROLET-BUIC,INC,No. 47499,47499 |
| Citation | 293 So.2d 14 |
| Parties | 14 UCC Rep.Serv. 1107 H. Keith NOBLE v. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Page & Peresich, Biloxi, for appellant.
Megehee, Brown, Williams & Corlew, Pascagoula, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County affirming a judgment for $1,532.66 rendered by the County Court of Jackson County in favor of Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. against H. Keith Noble.
Logan-Dees filed suit against Noble and alleged that it sold Noble a 1972 Buick Electra for the following consideration: trade-in of one 1970 wrecked Chevrolet El Camino, trade-in of one 1971 Dodge Charger and delivery to Logan-Dees of the proceeds of an insurance check covering the wrecked 1970 Chevrolet El Camino in the amount fo $1,532.66 and payment of $2,150.00 cash. Logan-Dees further alleged that it delivered Noble the 1972 Buick, accepted delivery of the two automobiles traded in, accepted payment of $2,150 with the promise of Noble to deliver the insurance check as soon as he received it.
At the trial Logan-Dees introduced its contract with Noble entitled 'Retail Buyer's Order' prepared by it showing that Noble agreed to purchase a new automobile which was described only by stock number, model and color and to pay the following consideration:
Total cash price $6,615.00
Cash down payment 46.40
Used car allowance 4,418.60
-------- 4,465.00
---------
Balance payable $2,150.00
The contract was duly executed by both parties and contained the following provision:
This order is not binding on dealer until accepted by dealer in writing. I have read the matter printed on the back hereof and agree to it as a part of this order the same as if it were printed above my signature. The front and back of this order comprises the entire agreement pertaining to this purchase and no other agreement of any kind, verbal understanding or promise whatsoever, will be recognized. Receipt of a copy of this order is hereby acknowledged. (Emphasis supplied.)
The contract was prepared and signed after oral negotiations between Noble and King, the salesman who handled the transaction for Logan-Dees. There is a conflict in the testimony as to when the contract was signed. King testified that it was signed at the time the 1972 Buick was delivered to Noble, but Noble, testified that it was signed on a date previous to the delivery of the automobile. Regardless of the date the contract was signed, it is a writing expressing the contract between the parties.
Before delivery of the automobile, Noble paid Logan-Dees $46.40 and on the day of delivery gave the salesman a check for $2,150 and transferred title to the 1971 Charger and 1970 El Camino mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:96-CV-284WS.
...terms control both course of dealing and usage of trade and course of dealing controls usage of trade. See Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14, 15 (Miss.1974). Here, defendant has not produced any evidence that its definition of "committed to take" is embodied in any wri......
-
Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell
...explanation of a written agreement. And see Bunge Corporation v. Miller, 381 F.Supp. 176 (W.D.Tenn.1974). Cf. Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss.1974), a written contract intended as the final expression of the parties, which was the subject of an interesting disc......
-
Universal Computer Services, Inc. v. Lyall
...the document itself, which is the best evidence. See also Lee v. Lee, 119 So.2d 780, 238 Miss. 643 (1960); Noble v. Logan Dees Chevrolet-Buick Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss.1974). However, the employment contract only related to duties of employment, non-competition clauses, etc. It did not addr......
-
Franklin v. Lovitt Equipment Co., Inc.
...to recognize the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule subsequent to the passage of section 75-2-202. See Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss.1974) ("where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their contract in writing, the writing is n......