Mauldin Co. v. Lee Tractor Co. of Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02150-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-24-2006 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Open account - Section 11-53-81 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): SOUTHWICK AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-24-2004 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: HELD THAT ORDER FOR MOWERS WAS ON AN OPEN ACCOUNT AND SELLER NOT BOUND BY PRICE OF ORAL REPRESENTATION Case Number: A2402-2003-0090 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | EDDIE ADAMS AND BETH BROWN |
W. HOWARD GUNN |
||
| Appellee: | LEE TRACTOR CO. OF MISS., INC. | WAYNE L. HENGEN |
|
|
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 - Open account - Section 11-53-81 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lee Tractor Company of Miss., Inc. filed suit against Mauldin Company for a $7,934 balance owed to Lee by Mauldin on two tractors. Mauldin filed a counter-claim alleging that Lee failed to provide safety glass panels for the tractors and the expertise for installing the safety panels. The county court judge ruled in Lee’s favor, and Mauldin appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Mauldin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mauldin argues that the court erred in finding that this was an action based on an open account. An open account is a type of credit extended through an advance agreement by a seller to a buyer which permits the buyer to make purchases without a note of security and is based on an evaluation of the buyer's credit. Nothing in the record indicates that the transaction was predicated upon Mauldin’s credit or an advance agreement to allow purchases on credit. Additionally within the context of section 11-53-81, an account is not considered an open account absent a final and certain agreement on price. This action is more properly characterized as an action in contract. Thus, a new trial is necessary to determine the terms of the contract, whether the parties mutually assented to the terms of the contract, and whether there was a breach of the contract. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
