Tool Mart, Inc., et al. v. BancorpSouth Bank
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02315-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-30-2006 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed & Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Breach of contract - Summary judgment - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-18-2004 Appealed from: TISHOMINGO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: PARTIALLY GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case Number: CV00-00159(R)T |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LAURETTA WARREN |
GREGORY D. KEENUM |
||
| Appellee: | BANCORPSOUTH BANK D/B/A CREDIT CARD CENTER | MICHAEL D. TAPSCOTT |
|
|
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: | Breach of contract - Summary judgment - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | BancorpSouth sued Tool Mart, Inc., and O’Neal Wood for breach of contract. The court granted BancorpSouth summary judgment, awarding it $8,850 plus interest. Tool Mart and Wood appeal, and BancorpSouth cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Summary judgment Tool Mart entered a Credit Card Merchant Agreement with BancorpSouth. In the agreement, BancorpSouth agreed to electronically process credit card payments made by customers to Tool Mart, and Tool Mart agreed to pay for this service and to accept all Visa cards. The agreement provided that “Merchant will . . . Observe and comply with all the applicable Rules and Regulations promulgated by . . . VISA. . . .” Visa’s rules and regulations do not allow a merchant to have a no-refund policy unless the Merchant “delivers the purchased goods . . . To the Cardholder at the time of Transaction.” All of Tool Mart’s sales were by phone, so the goods were not delivered until after the time of the credit card transaction. When one of Tool Mart’s customers complained that some of the generators he bought were defective, Tool Mart refused to give a refund. The customer obtained the refund from his two Visa card companies, and BancorpSouth requested reimbursement from Tool Mart. Tool Mart and Wood argue that the existence of Tool Mart’s no-refund policy creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they should reimburse BancorpSouth for the chargebacks. By signing the agreement with BancorpSouth, Tool Mart agreed to change its no-refund policy with regard to any credit card sales. BancorpSouth was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law that Tool Mart and/or Wood must reimburse BancorpSouth $8,850. Whether or not Tool Mart had a no-refund policy is not a material issue, because Tool Mart agreed to allow refunds for telephone credit card sales. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees The Credit Card Merchant Agreement stated, “[i]n the event the Bank takes action to enforce this Agreement, Merchant agrees to pay . . . Reasonable attorney fees . . . Incurred by the Bank. . . .” Tool Mart and Wood admit that the contract is valid. Thus, BancorpSouth is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it be reimbursed for reasonable attorney fees associated with bringing this action. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
