Opinion ID: 1911047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Unawarded Damages

Text: Colton further seeks compensation for repairs to the truck, lost profits, lost investment opportunities, and use of an expert witness. The trial court declined to award these damages or costs. We see no abuse of discretion for omitting these items from incidental and consequential damage consideration. Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816, 820 (S.D.1991).
The trial court found Colton had not proved breach of warranty of merchantability. Decker was involved in a one-man trucking business which he started in 1980. From time to time he bought and fixed a total of five trucks. The 1975 Peterbilt at issue here he bought and drove for five years before selling it to Colton. The court found Decker was not a merchant. SDCL 57A-2-314(1). Merchant status is a question of fact and Colton has failed to show how the trial court's ruling was clearly erroneous. Cf. Terminal Grain Corp. v. Freeman, 270 N.W.2d 806 (S.D.1978). Colton argues the trial court erred in not finding that Decker breached an express warranty of description. SDCL 57A-2-313(1)(a)(b). He states: As a consequence of this misdescription... [he] received a truck perched on set of rails that literally shook the truck apart. Coltons paid $10,133 in extra repair bills because of those rails. These were in excess of what they would have incurred without the chopped, pasted, puttied, ground and mismatched rails that formed the truck's foundation. Colton knew he bought a restored truck. He knew the truck's characteristics before purchasing it; he drove it for nine months and almost 100,000 miles while working for Decker. After purchasing it, he drove it for many months. He never made any claim the truck was defective until after he recovered it from Wyoming. No evidence established that this truck was anything other than a 1975 Peterbilt Model 359 Tractor. The trial court correctly ruled that the title was defective, but Decker did not breach a warranty of description. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. MILLER, C.J., concurs. SABERS, J., concurs in part and concurs in result in part. AMUNDSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. GILBERTSON, J., not having been a member of the Court at the time this case was considered, did not participate.