Traylor v. Bell
| Decision Date | 20 November 1987 |
| Citation | 518 So.2d 719 |
| Parties | Ed Willie TRAYLOR, v. Charles BELL and Charles Bell Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac-GMC, Inc. 86-1006. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James R. Bowles of Bowles & Cottle, Tallassee, for appellant.
Robert S. Thompson, Tuskegee, for appellees.
This is an appeal from summary judgment in favor of defendants Charles Bell and Charles Bell Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac-GMC, Inc., in plaintiff's action based upon alleged fraud in the sale of an automobile. We affirm.
It will be helpful to quote from plaintiff's complaint:
The defendants moved to dismiss, that motion was overruled, and in due course the defendants answered, denying the material allegations of the complaint. The defendants moved for summary judgment, based upon the pleadings, the deposition of plaintiff, and certain exhibits consisting of contract documents. The plaintiffs opposed the motion for summary judgment, based upon the affidavit of plaintiff and the depositions of Joe Curtis Rowe, Bobby Young Bagley, Charles Bell, James Moore, and Clifton Bernard Pace.
In his affidavit, the plaintiff reiterated his charge that Bell "represented to me that the sale price ... would be $6,867.00 plus Alabama sales tax, document charges, title and license," and added:
The evidence disclosed by the depositions established that the automobile in question had a "sticker price" (suggested retail price) of $6,867.00. The "retail buyer's order," which contained the base price of the sale and which was signed by the plaintiff, contained the figure $7,455.00. As explained by the president of the dealership, Charles Bell, the difference between these figures, $588.00, was the charge added for a protective package, i.e., undercoat, fabric protector, and paint sealer. Added to this figure of $7,455.00 were sales tax of $145.23, a preparation fee of $100.00, and a title and license fee of $4.50. The aggregate sales price was $7,704.73, and this sum was shown on the retail buyer's order. That order form did not itemize the $588.00 sum charged for the protective package. However, there was testimony that this item was contained in a dealer sticker, an "add-on" sticker, which was placed on the car window. That item was included in the cash price, $7,455.00, and such a service was added to the car upon its delivery to the dealer.
The evidence also showed that plaintiff engaged in trade-in negotiations with defendant's salesman over the allowance for his own car. According to the salesman, plaintiff was given an allowance of $1,000.00 for that car, so plaintiff was not charged the full manufacturer's suggested retail price for the new Pontiac automobile.
The gist of plaintiff's complaint is that defendants fraudulently represented one sales...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...terms in documents when it is capable of reading them yet does not do so or investigate facts that should provoke inquiry. Traylor v. Bell , 518 So.2d 719 (Ala. 1987).As more fully explained:To recover in a fraud action filed after March 14, 1997, a plaintiff must prove that he or she reaso......
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...terms in documents when it is capable of reading them yet does not do so or investigate facts that should provoke inquiry. Traylor v. Bell, 518 So. 2d 719 (Ala. 1987). As more fully explained:To recover in a fraud action filed after March 14, 1997, a plaintiff must prove that he or she reas......
-
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham
...Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Smith, 518 So.2d 77 (Ala.1987); Syx v. Midfield Volkswagen, Inc., 518 So.2d 94 (Ala.1987); Traylor v. Bell, 518 So.2d 719 (Ala.1987); Pranzo v. ITEC, Inc., 521 So.2d 983 (Ala.1988); Cherokee Farms, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 526 So.2d 871 (Ala.1988); and Sout......
-
Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor
...recover." Torres v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 438 So.2d 757, 758-59 (Ala.1983). Defendants rely heavily on the case of Traylor v. Bell, 518 So.2d 719 (Ala.1987). In Traylor, the plaintiff alleged that an automobile dealer had defrauded him by adding the cost of a protective package to wha......