Tri-State Equipment Co., Inc. v. Tedder, TRI-STATE
| Decision Date | 04 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-9,TRI-STATE,81-9 |
| Citation | 272 Ark. 408,614 S.W.2d 938 |
| Parties | EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. M. C. TEDDER, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Bill D. Etter, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Branch & Thompson by Robert F. Thompson, Paragould, for appellee.
Appellant, Tri-State Equipment Company, sold certain machinery to appellee, M. C. Tedder. Upon Tedder's failure to make payments on the equipment, Tri-State sued for replevin. Tedder answered that the contract for the sale of the equipment was usurious and therefore void. Tri-State is a Tennessee corporation admitted to do business in Arkansas. It concedes that if Arkansas law applies, the contract is usurious and void. Tri-State contends that effect must be given to a provision in the "Security Agreement (Conditional Sales Contract)" signed by both parties, stating that the contract is to be governed by Tennessee law, and that the contract is not usurious under Tennessee law. The court below found the contract to be an Arkansas contract and void under Arkansas law as being usurious. We agree.
In early June, 1979, Tedder contacted a representative of Tri-State in Jonesboro concerning the lease of a Komatsu Dozer Shovel, a front-end loader. Tri-State's representative met with Tedder at Paragould and placed an order for the equipment for a two-day trial demonstration. Tedder decided to purchase the equipment and signed a "Note and Disclosure Statement" dated June 14, 1979, which provided that the contract was to be governed by Arkansas law. Later, the parties signed a "Security Agreement (Conditional Sale Contract)" dated June 28, 1979, which provided that the contract was not to take effect until it was accepted by Tri-State's office in Memphis and that the contract was to be governed by Tennessee law. Tedder maintains that this was when he learned that Tri-State was not located in Jonesboro but in Tennessee.
The evidence is uncontroverted that all negotiations surrounding the transactions were conducted in Arkansas the equipment was ordered and delivered in Arkansas, the contract was signed in Arkansas, Tedder's trial and approval occurred in Arkansas, and the sales tax on the transaction was paid in Arkansas.
In an almost identical case, Standard Leasing Corporation v. Schmidt Aviation, Inc., 264 Ark. 851, 576 S.W.2d 181 (1979), this court held that a contract substantially executed and performed in Arkansas was in fact an Arkansas contract governed by the laws of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.
...significant relationship" test. 22 Several recent Arkansas cases have applied versions of this test. See Tri-State Equipment Co. v. Tedder, 1981, 272 Ark. 408, 614 S.W.2d 938; Standard Leasing Corp. v. Schmidt Aviation, Inc., 1979, 264 Ark. 851, 576 S.W.2d 181; see also Credit Bureau Manage......
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Morrow Land Valley Co.
...on a choice-of-law question. McMillen v. Winona Nat'l & Sav. Bank, 279 Ark. 16, 648 S.W.2d 460 (1983); Tri–State Equip. Co. v. Tedder, 272 Ark. 408, 614 S.W.2d 938 (1981); Yarbrough v. Prentice Lee Tractor Co., 252 Ark. 349, 479 S.W.2d 549 (1972). This standard comports with Rule 52(b) of t......
-
BICE CONST. CO. v. CIT Corp. of the South, Inc.
...by Arkansas law. The Arkansas Supreme Court again addressed the contractual selection of law issue in Tri-State Equipment Co. v. Tedder, 272 Ark. 408, 614 S.W.2d 938 (1981). The facts in Tri-State were as In early June, 1979, Tedder contacted a representative of Tri-State in Jonesboro conce......
-
Heating & Air Specialists, Inc. v. Jones
...South, Inc., 647 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Ark.1983) (applying Cooper to uphold the parties' choice of law clause); Tri-State Equip. Co., Inc. v. M.C. Tedder, 614 S.W.2d 938, 939-40 (Ark.1981) (citing Standard Leasing and using the principal contacts test in applying the law of the state that would ......