Murray v. Blackwell


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01373-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-16-2007
Opinion Author: CARLTON, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose - Waiver - Section 75-2-315.1(3)(a) - Section 11-7-18 - Express warranty
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-14-2006
Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr.
Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED JUDGMENT ENTERED BY COUNTY COURT
Case Number: 2005-0149-CV1

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: ROGER MURRAY D/B/A TWIN RIVER AUTO SALES




DAVID S. VAN EVERY



 

Appellee: TAMMY BLACKWELL WILLIAM L. BAMBACH  

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 - Breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose - Waiver - Section 75-2-315.1(3)(a) - Section 11-7-18 - Express warranty

Summary of the Facts: In 1999, Tammy Blackwell purchased for $4,625 a 1989 Mazda 626 from Roger Murray d/b/a Twin River Auto Sales. She signed a notice of exclusion or modification of implied warranty. Blackwell used the car until June 2001 when she took the car to Cottman’s Transmission for repairs. Apparently, Blackwell was unable to pay for these services. The car was abandoned at Cottman’s and eventually sold to satisfy a mechanic’s lien. Blackwell filed suit against Murray in county court for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The county court entered a judgment in favor of Blackwell. Murray appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Murray appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The circuit court found that the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose may not be waived. Murray argues that Blackwell effectively waived the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose by executing the notice of exclusion or modification of implied warranty pursuant to section 75-2-315.1(3)(a). Mississippi law recognizes two implied warranties in contracts for the sale of goods: the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. While well-established Mississippi precedent holds that the implied warranties may not be waived or disclaimed in a contract for the sale of a used motor vehicle, section 75-2-315.1 is specifically excepted from the non-disclaimer statute, section 11-7-18. This fact, together with a plain reading of section 75-2-315.1 itself, makes abundantly clear that the legislature intended to permit the disclaimer of implied warranties in contracts for the sale of late-model used vehicles. The execution of the “as is” agreement in the instant case complied with section 75-2-315.1 in all respects. Therefore, the trial judge erred in finding that the implied warranties were not waived or disclaimed. Blackwell argues that Murray made an additional express warranty to repair a thumping sound the vehicle was making and, thereafter, breached this express warranty by failing to repair the defect. Murray argues that, after Blackwell picked the vehicle up from Best Transmission, she failed to reject the vehicle under section 75-2-602 or to revoke her acceptance of the vehicle within a reasonable time under section 75-2-607. Because the trial judge made no findings as to how the amount of damages was calculated and did not specify under which provision(s) of the uniform commercial code damages were awarded, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court