On appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial, we must affirm unless the court's decision is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict. The Piephos contend that Scott's Auto is liable for conversion because it repossessed the truck and deprived the Piephos of its use. Conversion has been defined as an act of wilful interference with a chattel, done without lawful justification, by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession. The Piephos seek to substantiate their claim by showing that Scott's Auto lacked lawful justification for repossessing the truck. They allege that the provision regarding repossession was a new element to the repair contract that had not been included in their negotiation and, thus, required additional consideration.
Consideration is an essential element for a valid contract.
The flaw in the Piephos' argument is their misconstruction of their contract with Scott's Auto. The parties had created an executory contract, under which Scott's Auto agreed to rebuild the Piephos' Chevy engine. An executory contract leaves something yet to be done or agreed upon in the future, or depends on some future act or contingency of a party. An executory contract that is not within the statute of frauds may be modified, without independent consideration, and still be valid and binding on the parties. When the Piephos knowingly signed the contract, they agreed to the provision allowing Scott's Auto to repossess the vehicle and bound themselves to those terms.