Case Title: Osborn v. CUSTOM TRUCK SALES & SERVICE, COAL, INC.

Citation: 562 So. 2d 243

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1990-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
562 So. 2d 243 (1990)
Johnny M. OSBORN
v.
CUSTOM TRUCK SALES & SERVICE, A DIVISION OF ALLEY-CASSETTY COAL, INC.
88-763.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 6, 1990.
Gerald D. Colvin, Jr. of Bishop, Colvin & Johnson, Birmingham, for appellant.
Jack W. Torbert of Torbert and Torbert, Gadsden, for appellee.
KENNEDY, Justice.
This case was remanded for a new trial in Custom Truck Sales & Service, a division of Alley-Cassetty Coal, Inc. v. Osborn, 507 So. 2d 424 (Ala.1987). After the second trial, the plaintiff, Johnny M. Osborn, *244 appeals from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, in favor of the defendants, Custom Truck Sales & Service, a division of Alley-Cassetty Coal, Inc. ("Custom Truck"). We affirm.
The issues are (1) whether there was an implied warranty of merchantability in the sale of four used cement trucks; (2) whether the trial court erred in not charging the jury that the plaintiff could recover for willful misrepresentation, deceit, and suppression of the truth; and (3) whether the verdict of the jury was plainly and palpably wrong or manifestly unjust.
In the spring of 1982, Osborn desired to purchase four Crane Carrier model cement trucks for his ready mix concrete business in Alabama. Osborn communicated with Bill Crouch, general manager of Custom Truck, in Nashville, Tennessee. Custom Truck was a franchise dealer for Crane Carrier Corporation ("Crane Carrier"), a manufacturer of trucks in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Crouch visited Osborn's plant site, and they discussed what kind of trucks Osborn wanted. Later, Crouch contacted the Crane Carrier factory and was directed to contact Gene Henderson in Dallas, Texas, who knew where there were some used Crane Carrier trucks that Osborn might be interested in purchasing. Crouch discussed with Henderson what kind of trucks Osborn wanted, and Henderson located about 12 Crane Carrier cement trucks in Dallas, Texas. The trucks were being refurbished for Crane Carrier by a company called Mixer Southwest. Henderson told Crouch that some of the trucks had been repaired, refurbished, and repainted and that some were in the process of having such work done. Crouch notified Osborn that he had located some trucks, and Osborn sent Raymond Thompson to Dallas to inspect the trucks. Thompson, accompanied by Crouch and Henderson, inspected the steering mechanism, engine, transmission, drive lines, differential, running gear, and pinion on the trucks and selected four 1979 model trucks. At the time Thompson inspected the four trucks, one of the cabs had a coat of primer, and the other three cabs had been freshly painted. As a result, neither Thompson nor Crouch could tell whether any "new steel skins" had been put on the trucks. Thompson did not specifically inspect the trucks for rust. Upon Thompson's recommendation, Osborn placed a deposit on the four trucks. Osborn purchased the trucks through a leasing company for $40,000 each and sent some of his employees to Dallas to drive the trucks to Alabama. When the trucks arrived in Alabama, they had to have a few repairs, and for those repairs Osborn received an offset of $3,000 against the purchase price.
The trucks were put in operation by the summer of 1982, and by January 1983, the cabs of the trucks began showing extensive defects. Instead of having "new steel skins," which Osborn claims Crouch had promised would be put on the cabs, the rust-damaged areas had been repaired with "bondo," primed, and repainted. Repairing the cabs with "new steel skins" would have entailed cutting out the rust-damaged areas, welding new steel onto the area, and preparing it for painting. After the trucks were put in operation, the paint began to flake off the cabs and the bondo began to fall out; and the floorboards of the cabs began to show rust, which was so extensive in one cab that a piece of metal had to be put on the floor for the driver to rest his feet. Also, the cab doors would not open and close properly.
Osborn notified Crouch about the rust problems. Crouch said the proper repairs could be made in Nashville but would be made at Osborn's expense. Thereafter, Osborn ordered four new cabs through Custom Truck. Three cabs were delivered, but the fourth was not delivered because Osborn had refused to pay for the first three.
In December 1983, Osborn sued Custom Truck on four counts, alleging (1) misrepresentation made knowingly or recklessly or innocently; (2) breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (3) breach of an implied warranty of merchantibility; and (4) breach of an express *245 warranty.[1]
The basis of this lawsuit is Osborn's allegation that Crouch promised that, to the extent that the four truck cabs had any rust, the cabs would be refurbished with "new steel skins" so as to make them practically new cabs.
Crouch testified, in part, as follows:
Crouch, who had been in the business of selling trucks for 20 years, further testified that the standards on sales of used trucks with respect to warranties given, if any, is "as is, where is," except that, in the case of an engine overhaul, the engine is warranted up to six months.
Osborn testified, in part, as follows:
The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Custom Truck on the issue of whether there was an implied warranty of merchantability.
Osborn argues that there was an implied warranty of merchantability in the sale of the four used cement trucks. We disagree.
We note that other jurisdictions have adopted an implied warranty of merchantability in the sale of a used motor vehicle. However, this Court stated in Trax, Inc. v. Tidmore, 331 So. 2d 275, 277 (Ala.1976):
See also Curry Motor Co. v. Hasty, 505 So. 2d 347, 350 (Ala.1987). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of Custom Truck on this issue.
The trial court instructed the jury, inter alia, concerning the issues of reckless misrepresentation and mistaken misrepresentation. Osborn argues that the trial court erred in not giving instructions 18.01, 18.04, and 18.05 of the Alabama Pattern Jury Instruction: Civil (1974).[2]
Instruction 18.01 concerns the issue of willful misrepresentation, and it reads:
Instruction 18.04 concerns the issue of deceit, and it reads:
Instruction 18.05 concerns the issue of suppression of truth, and it reads:
We find no evidence from which the jury could have inferred that Crouch, acting as the authorized agent for Custom Truck, (1) willfully misrepresented a material fact to Osborn; (2) acted with knowledge of the alleged falsehood so that his actions amounted to deceit; or (3) concealed or withheld material facts from Osborn. Therefore, the instructions requested on that theory of the case were properly refused. Southern Ry. v. Clarke, 203 Ala. 248, 249, 82 So. 516, 517 (1919).
Finally, Osborn argues that the verdict of the jury was "not based upon substantial evidence of record." We recognize that "an appellate court will revise a jury's verdict if it is convinced by a `preponderance of the evidence that the jury's verdict was palpably wrong and manifestly unjust.' "Tallant v. Grain Mart, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1251, 1255 (Ala.1983) (citation omitted). However, in this case, we are not so convinced.
Therefore, the judgment is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.
[1]  Because the complaint was filed prior to the adoption of Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the "scintilla" rule of evidence applies.
[2]  Custom Truck argues that Osborn did not comply with Rule 51, A.R.Civ.P.; however, we note Osborn's objections to the trial court's ruling on §§ 18.01, 18.04, and 18.05 at pages 158-61 of the record.