Opinion ID: 1863614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Champion's cross appeal1951119

Text: As to the breach of contract claim, Champion argues that there was a lack of consideration on Fant's part, because, it says, Fant had not paid for the repairs when the accident occurred. Thus, it says, it was entitled to a JNOV on the contract claim. The basic elements of a contract are an offer and an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent to the essential terms of the agreement. Pinyan v. Community Bank, 644 So.2d 919 (Ala.1994). Consideration must be present when the contract is made. The requirement of consideration means that a gratuitous promise is not enforceable. Here, we have a promise to repair, given in exchange for a promise to pay, with both parties benefiting from the exchange of promises. The fact that the money had not been paid does not mean consideration was lacking. We note that it was shortly after the repairs were made that the accident occurred, and we find no merit to the argument that there was a lack of consideration. We conclude that the trial court properly denied a JNOV as to the contract claim. As to the wantonness and fraud claims also, the trial court properly denied a JNOV. As discussed above, there was substantial evidence that Champion knew that Boman had never worked on a propeller-type airplane before and that he had difficulty in installing the propeller on Fant's airplane. There was substantial evidence that the accident was caused by a loose propeller. Also, Boman failed to disclose that he had reused fiber locking nuts to attach the propeller; reusing fiber locking nuts is a dangerous practice in the airplane industry. Further, Boman falsified records in completing the service on the plane. Champion argues that the trial court gave an incorrect statement of the law to the jury during Champion's closing argument. Champion's attorney stated during his closing argument, in regard to punitive damages, that Fant was seeking to punish this defendant for the benefit of the public and who benefits from that? They do. They get the money. (R.T. 973-74.) Fant objected. The trial court told the jury: Ladies and Gentlemen, there are some changes in the law concerning damages and where that goes at this point. Currently it does not just go to the plaintiff. Part of that will go to the State of Alabama under the current law. Champion did not object to the trial court's statement. It also failed to raise the argument in its post-judgment motion for a JNOV or, in the alternative, a new trial or remittitur. (C.R.129-32.) Therefore, this issue has not been preserved for appeal. Even if the issue had been preserved, we would conclude that the court's statement was a correct statement of the law when it was made. [3] Accordingly, the order granting a new trial is reversed; the order denying Champion's JNOV motion is affirmed; and the case is remanded. 1951013REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED. 1951119AFFIRMED. HOOPER, C.J., and ALMON, SHORES, and HOUSTON, JJ., concur. COOK, J., concurs in the result. MADDOX, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.