Lacy v. Morrison
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02059-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-07-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Fraud - Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2003 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT Case Number: 2001-0177-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James D. Lacy |
MOSE LEE SUDDUTH, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Valford Morrison | JEFFREY C. SMITH |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Fraud - Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Lacy filed a complaint against Valford Morrison in the County Court of Lowndes County alleging breach of contract based on material misrepresentations. The complaint was later dismissed for want of prosecution, but Lacy obtained an agreed order allowing the claim to be re-opened. Lacy then retained new legal counsel who, after receiving court approval, filed an amended complaint alleging fraud in the inducement and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Morrison filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. Lacy appealed to circuit court which affirmed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Fraud Lacy argues that the contract was breached by fraud in the inducement. Fraud in the inducement arises when a party to a contract makes a fraudulent misrepresentation, i.e., by asserting information he knows to be untrue, for the purpose of inducing the innocent party to enter into a contract. Fraud requires proof of a representation; its falsity; its materiality; the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; his intent that it should be acted on by the person and in the matter reasonably contemplated; the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity; his reliance upon its truth; his right to rely thereon; his consequent and proximate injury. Lacy failed to produce evidence establishing each of these elements. Lacy never explicitly stated that he acted, i.e., purchased the truck, in reliance on Morrison’s misrepresentation as to the truck’s make. As explained in his affidavit, Lacy simply found the make of the truck a favorable fact when considering potential resale value. In addition, without evidence demonstrating a causal connection between Lacy’s averred reliance on Morrison’s statement that the truck was a 1989 model and the subsequent failure of transmission that resulted in an injury of $500, Lacy has failed to establish the requisite injury for the fraud alleged. Issue 2: Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose Lacy argues that the transmission’s subsequent failure, after pulling a trailer to Oklahoma, constitutes a breach by Morrison of their contract’s implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The lower court granted summary judgment explaining that no warranty of fitness arose because Morrison was not a merchant. However, the warranty of fitness, unlike the warranty of merchantability, does not require a merchant seller. To recover under this implied warranty, there must be some relationship between the reason the goods are unfit and the type or kind of goods selected for the particular purpose. Therefore, for Lacy to recover, the evidence on record must demonstrate that Morrison, knowing Lacy intended to pull a horse trailer, selected or assisted Lacy in selecting the truck and that the truck was unfit for the particular purpose of pulling a horse trailer. Lacy clearly purchased Morrison’s truck on his own initiative. Any statement by Morrison regarding the truck cannot be construed as effort by Morrison to assist Lacy in the purchase, so Lacy cannot be found to have relied on Morrison’s skill or judgment. Without such reliance, no implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arose, so Morrison cannot possibly be in breach of the warranty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
