Mercury Marine v. Clear River Constr.Co., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01888-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-06-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Reasonable opportunity to cure - Failure of essential purpose - Section 75-2-719(2) - Implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for particular purpose - Section 75-2-315.1 Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb and Carlson, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. GRAVES,J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Diaz and Easley, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-14-2001 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: The jury awarded $30,000.00 to the Appellee. Case Number: 2001-136 |
|
| Note: | PITTMAN, C.J., SMITH, P.J., COBB AND CARLSON, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. McRAE, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY DIAZ AND EASLEY, JJ. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mercury Marine, a Division of Brunswick Corporation |
DOUGLAS DREW MALONE
RICHARD M. EDMONSON |
||
| Appellee: | Clear River Construction Co., Inc. | DAVID W. MOCKBEE |
|
|
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 - Reasonable opportunity to cure - Failure of essential purpose - Section 75-2-719(2) - Implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for particular purpose - Section 75-2-315.1 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mercury Marine, a division of Brunswick Corporation, made Nicholas Travis, president of Clear River Construction Company, a member of its Saltwater Pro Team. As a member, Travis would receive a substantial discount on Mercury Marine motors in exchange for his promoting of its products. Travis purchased a new World Cat catamaran boat for $52,359.50 and two new 1998 200-horsepower Mercury Mariner Offshore motors for $13,862.00 and a $300 freight charge to transport the motors to World Cat's facilities in Greenville, North Carolina, for installation. Travis entered the Southern Kingfish Association National Championship but was unable to "pre-fish" and did not place because of problems with the boat’s motor. Nearly ten months later, the lower unit, or gear case, on the same motor which had malfunctioned earlier failed while Travis was fishing 83 miles offshore. Later that same month, while pre-fishing in the Gulf of Mexico in preparation for the Cypress Cove Tournament, a rod bearing in the other motor failed thereby totally disabling it. Travis filed suit on behalf of Clear River alleging breach of express warranty and breaches of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and seeking $34,980 for the costs of replacing the Mercury Marine motors and loss of tournament prize winnings. The jury awarded Clear River $30,000, and Mercury Marine appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Reasonable opportunity to cure Mercury Marine argues that Travis failed to afford it a reasonable opportunity to cure the motors' defects, because he purchased the Yamaha motors on the same day as the malfunction of the Mercury Marine motor and filed suit to recover the cost of the Yamaha motors. The law's policy of minimization of economic waste strongly supports recognition of a reasonable opportunity to cure. Travis should have brought the malfunctioning motor to a Mercury Marine dealer for repair according to the warranty, and Mercury Marine should have been allowed to cure the defective motor. Issue 2: Instruction on failure of essential purpose The court granted an instruction on failure of essential purpose because the Mercury warranty did not do Travis or Clear River any good when he was out in the middle of the ocean trying to engage in tournament fishing and the engine quit. While section 75-2-719(2) allows a plaintiff to seek redress where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, the statute does not define a failure of essential purpose nor apply it to a repair or replace warranty. Where the prescribed remedy term appears to be intended to cover the loss that has occurred, there can be no failure of essential purpose, though the application of the term to the situation at hand may raise questions of unconscionability. The court’s statement that the warranty did not do Travis any good when he was out in the middle of the ocean hints at unconscionability. Merely because a boat's engine fails in the ocean does not mean that the limited warranty of repair or replacement fails of its essential purpose. While repeated attempts amount to a failure of a warranty's essential purpose, there were no repeated attempts by Mercury Marine to correct defects and repeated failure to do so. Therefore, Mercury Marine's limited warranty did not fail of its essential purpose. Issue 3: Implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for particular purpose While the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose cannot be disclaimed under section 75-2-315.1, the seller must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure even though there may have been a breach of an implied warranty. Mercury Marine should have been afforded an opportunity to cure. Because Travis did not allow Mercury Marine to cure, the court erred in instructing the jury on incidental and consequential damages. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
