UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY v. Pulliam
Decision Date | 31 May 1957 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 680. |
Parties | UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY Plaintiff, v. H. Doyce PULLIAM, d/b/a Pulliam Tire Service, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Albert Graves, Hope, Ark., for plaintiff.
Lawson E. Glover, Malvern, Ark., R. Julian Glover, Hot Springs, Ark., for defendant.
This case was tried to the Court without a jury on May 1, 1957, and at the conclusion of the trial the Court took the case under advisement pending receipt of briefs of the parties in support of their respective contentions.
The briefs have been received, and the Court, having considered the pleadings, the evidence, and briefs of the parties, now makes and files herein its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, separately stated.
Plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation. The defendant, H. Doyce Pulliam, is a citizen of the State of Arkansas and resides in the City of Malvern, Arkansas. He is doing business under the name of Pulliam Tire Service. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $3,000.
In 1952, the defendant began doing business with the plaintiff. The parties entered into a written agreement entitled "United States Distributor's Consignment Agreement". Each year a contract was entered into between the parties, the latest contract being dated January 1, 1955.
Among other things the agreement provided:
The parties operated under these Consignment Agreements from 1952 until May 1955. The defendant's business was primarily that of a retail dealer in tires and related services. Defendant would order tires from plaintiff, and the tires would be shipped to him on consignment. On the 20th of each month defendant would take an inventory of the consigned merchandise on hand and send an inventory to plaintiff. Having the inventory figures and the figures on the amount of merchandise which had been ordered, plaintiff could then ascertain the amount of consigned merchandise that had been sold by defendant to his customers, and plaintiff would then charge that amount to defendant on an open account. Plaintiff carried these amounts on open account in order to save defendant the interest defendant would have been required to pay had he used bank or other financing.
In most cases the merchandise was sold by defendant to his customers on conditional sales contracts and defendant kept a record of his accounts receivable from his customers.
In addition to ordering merchandise on consignment, defendant also purchased some items from plaintiff on open account, including some special purchases of tires, tubes, batteries, etc. Defendant also purchased some items from others, such as tread rubber for recapping, wheel weights, repair material, used tires, etc.
A part of the services offered by defendant to his customers included recapping of tires, repair work on tires, and wheel balancing.
As the parties continued to do business the balance owed by defendant to plaintiff on open account grew larger and larger. The parties had several conferences, and finally on May 25, 1955, plaintiff decided to close out the consignment account. On that date, Charles R. McCallister, plaintiff's credit manager, went to defendant's place of business in Malvern, Arkansas, for the purpose of closing out the account. Most of the consigned merchandise in defendant's place of business was returned to plaintiff and defendant was given credit therefor. In addition to the consigned merchandise, $2,599.57 worth of other merchandise was returned to plaintiff and defendant was given credit therefor based on the defendant's cost price.
Plaintiff also took an assignment of defendant's accounts receivable in the total amount of $13,062.86. Of that amount $3,632.73 was for merchandise not covered by the Consignment Agreement.
With regard to the accounts receivable representing consigned merchandise, it was the understanding of McCallister that his company was taking an assignment of said accounts receivable in an effort to facilitate the collecting of said accounts. It was further his understanding that defendant would be given credit for all collections made by plaintiff, but not for the face amount of the accounts receivable. On the other hand, it was defendant's understanding that he would be given credit for the entire face amount of the accounts receivable regardless of whether or not plaintiff was successful in collecting them.
With regard to the accounts receivable in the sum of $3,632.73 based on merchandise not covered by the Consignment Agreement, both parties understood that the assignment of said accounts receivable was taken by plaintiff at full face value in part payment of the indebtedness owed by defendant to plaintiff.
At the time the...
To continue reading
Request your trial