Traylor v. Huntsman
| Decision Date | 18 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--6097,5--6097 |
| Citation | 253 Ark. 704,488 S.W.2d 30 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | R. C. TRAYLOR, Appellant, v. Harold HUNTSMAN, d/b/a Huntsman Farm Stores and Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., Appellees. |
Guy H. Jones, Phil Stratton and Guy Jones, Jr., Conway, for appellant.
House, Holmes & Jewell by Don F. Hamilton, Little Rock, George F. Hartje, Conway, for appellees.
Appellee Huntsman, a retailer, sold the appellant a farm tractor. Huntsman brought this action to collect the alleged balance owed on the tractor and to foreclose a lien. Appellant filed an answer and, also, responded with a counter-claim against Huntsman and a third-party complaint against appellee Allis-Chalmers, the manufacturer of the tractor. Upon appellant's motion, the cause was transferred from Chancery to Circuit Court. After the evidence by Huntsman and appellant was presented, the court granted appellee Allis-Chalmers' motion for a directed verdict. At the close of all the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of Huntsman as to appellant's counter-claim for crop damages. The jury verdict was in favor of Huntsman for $9,250 as being the balance due him on the purchase price of the tractor. The jury verdict, also, directed 'delivery of the hitch' as provided in the contract. The court, with Huntsman's consent, reduced the verdict by $697.35, the value of the three-point hitch. From that judgment as modified, plus interest and attorney's fee, comes this appeal.
For reversal appellant first contends that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant's third-party complaint against appellee Allis-Chalmers. The third-party complaint against Allis-Chalmers, the manufacturer, alleged that the retailer Huntsman and Steve Travis, a field representative of the manufacturer, sold the farm tractor to appellant and represented to him that it was a new demonstrator with less than 150 hours of use; that it was not a new demonstrator which was known to the manufacturer's agent; that the tractor did not conform to the contract because it was delivered without a 'three-point hitch' and the manufacturer's agent knew that a three-point hitch was required; and that the tractor had been used excessively. In his third-party complaint, the appellant sought damages for the difference between the contract price and the actual market value of the tractor and, also, for damages resulting from the non-delivery of the three-point hitch which allegedly caused a late planting and, therefore, a diminished soybean yield for the 1968 crop. It is appellant's contention 'that the pleadings and the proof, when viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, was sufficient to create a question for the jury on two allegations of the third-party complaint (1) whether the tractor was a new demonstrator as represented and (2) whether the tractor conformed to the contract when it was delivered minus the three-point hitch.'
In our view the evidence appears undisputed that the manufacturer was not a party to the contract originally or by ratification. The terms of the contract were verbally agreed upon between Huntsman, the seller, and appellant, the buyer, after negotiations between them and inspection of the tractor by appellant. A few days later Huntsman and appellant signed the written contract. Travis, the manufacturer's agent, merely witnessed their signatures and assisted in computing the balance due and, after credits, the annual payments and then filled in these items. (Appellant says that the balance due was left blank and should be $8,250 rather than $9,250.) Appellant admits that he had never met this agent until the date appellant signed the contract. Also, the agent nor any other representative of the manufacturer ever made any representations to him concerning the quality or condition of the tractor or with respect to whether the tractor conformed to the contract upon delivery without the three-point hitch. When we consider this evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant, no factual issue existed for the jury's consideration as to the manufacturer being a party to this contract; therefore, the trial court properly directed a verdict. Corwart, Adm'x v. Jones, Contractor, 250 Ark. 881, 467 S.W.2d 710 (1971). Furthermore, appellant admits that he knew it was a demonstrator and that the manufacturer had fully performed a one-year warranty with respect to his complaints. The one-year warranty was customary in the sale of a new demonstrator tractor.
Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for appellee Huntsman on appellant's counter-claim. The contract provided that Huntsman, the seller, would order and deliver a '3 point hitch' which was to be used on the tractor in planting his soybean crop. Appellant makes the argument that the failure of Huntsman to deliver the three-point hitch resulted in consequential damages, i.e., a decrease and loss in appellant's soybean production. According to appellant, the offer of delivery by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Pryor
...expressed under a mistake of law, in order to conform it to the manifest intention of the jury, such as we had in Traylor v. Huntsman, 253 Ark. 704, 488 S.W.2d 30 and in Trailmobile, Inc. v. Robinson, 227 Ark. 915, 302 S.W.2d 786. On the face of the verdict, the answers to the interrogatori......
-
Wilkins v. M & H FINANCIAL, INC., LR-C-78-406.
...certainty and may not be conjectural nor rest on individual opinions of the parties or the witnesses. Traylor v. Huntsman & Allis Chalmers, 253 Ark. 704, 488 S.W.2d 30 (1972); Eagle Properties v. West & Co.. 242 Ark. 184, 412 S.W.2d 605 Plaintiffs did prove substantial losses incurred in op......
-
Dickson v. Delhi Seed Co.
...anticipated profits may be recovered if the evidence establishes the alleged damages with reasonable certainty. See Traylor v. Huntsman, 253 Ark. 704, 488 S.W.2d 30 (1972). We find no error in admitting evidence of incidental or consequential damages, including anticipated Appellants next a......
-
Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Paragould v. Frantz
...or conjecture, Duncan v. Foster, 271 Ark. 591, 609 S.W.2d 62 (1980), and must be proven with reasonable certainty, Traylor v. Huntsmen, 253 Ark. 704, 488 S.W.2d 30 (1972). Frantz's proof of damages was provided by Dr. Ralph Scott, an economist, who placed a value of between $89,000 and $164......
-
Chapter 9 Damages
...Brill, supra note 1, § 4:3.[13] Id. § 4:4.[14] Id. § 4:5; Sumlin v. Woodson, 211 Ark. 214, 199 S.W.2d 936 (1947); Taylor v. Huntsman, 253 Ark. 704, 488 S.W.2d 30 (1972). [15] AMI Civ. 2407 (2015). [16] Am. Bar Assoc., Fundamentals of Constr. Law, Ch. 15, § III (L. Franklin et al. eds., 2d e......