Byrd v. Paw Paw's Camper City, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01894-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-18-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Disclosure of damage - Deceptive trade practices - Regulation One of State of Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission - Section 75-24-5(2)(f)-(g) Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE Case Number: A2401-2006-00087 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | THOMAS BYRD |
WOODROW W. PRINGLE, III |
||
| Appellee: | PAW PAW’S CAMPER CITY, INC. | LARRY GENE CANADA DORIS THERESA BOBADILLA ANNA KATHRYN BREARD |
|
|
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 - Disclosure of damage - Deceptive trade practices - Regulation One of State of Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission - Section 75-24-5(2)(f)-(g) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thomas Byrd purchased a 2004 model Holiday Rambler recreational vehicle (RV) from Paw Paw’s Camper City. Almost a year passed before the Byrds learned that the RV had been previously damaged. Byrd filed a complaint against Paw Paw’s, citing misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, breach of implied and express warranties, and breach of contract. Paw Paw’s filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. Byrd appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Byrd argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Paw Paw’s because Paw Paw’s used unfair and deceptive trade practices and violated implied and express warranties by selling him a previously damaged RV. The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of the RV that Byrd purchased was $152,983. The damage caused by the hit-and-run was $1,593.16, approximately one percent of the MSRP. Regulation One issued by the State of Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission does not require disclosure of corrected damage unless it exceeds six percent of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, as measured by retail repair costs. Since the damage was less than six percent, Paw Paw’s was not required to disclose the damage to the purchaser. Byrd also argues that regardless of the amount of the damage, Paw Paw’s was still required to disclose the prior damage under section 75-24-5(2)(f)-(g). However, Paw Paw’s did not violate either of these subsections. The RV and the replacement parts used to repair the damage were new. The RV met all applicable standards and was merchantable and fit for ordinary use. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
