Stovall v. Hayes
Docket Number: | 2006-CA-02144-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-17-2008 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Subsequent agreement Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Dissenting Author : IRVING, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2006 Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: JUDGMENT IN AMOUNT OF $868.22 AWARDED TO HAYES/HOLLY SPRINGS TIRE; POSSESSION OF CAR AWARDED TO STOVALL Case Number: M2005-487 JC |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
Appellant: | A.J. STOVALL |
LATRICE WESTBROOKS |
|
|
Appellee: | W.L. HAYES AND HOLLY SPRINGS TIRE | KENT E. SMITH, JUSTIN STRAUSS CLUCK |
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 - Subsequent agreement |
Summary of the Facts: | A.J. Stovall filed a replevin action in justice court against William Hayes, the manager of Holly Springs Tire, and Holly Springs Tire, after a dispute arose concerning repairs to his car. The justice court ruled in favor of Hayes and Holly Springs Tire and ordered Stovall to pay $400 for the return of his car. Stovall appealed the decision to circuit court. The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of Hayes and Holly Springs Tire in the amount of $868.22 and ordered that Stovall be given possession of the car. Stovall appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Stovall argues that he made a verbal contract with the mechanic to make any necessary repairs to his car for $200, and this contract was not modified by any subsequent dealings. Stovall also argues that the mechanic had apparent authority to act as an agent for Holly Springs Tire, and Stovall relied to his detriment on representations made by the mechanic. Any contract, however made or evidenced, can be discharged or modified by subsequent agreement of the parties. In order for such a subsequent agreement to effect a modification, it must meet the requirements for a valid contract. A valid contract requires an offer and acceptance. Even if an oral contract was formed in this case, the original terms of the purported contract were modified when the mechanic discovered the head gasket, rather than the timing belt, needed to be replaced. No agreement was made as to price once the parties agreed to the replacement of the head gasket. Stovall testified that he would stop by the shop to ask when the car would be ready, but he did not testify that he discussed a price. His testimony that Hayes offered to reduce the bill by $200 does not show that they agreed to a set price of $200. Hayes’ offer to reduce the bill was an attempt to settle the dispute. Stovall did not accept the offer and instead instituted litigation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court