Opinion ID: 1872239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Mobile Home Was Substantially Impaired?

Text: North River contends that the Bosarges failed to prove that the mobile home in question was substantially impaired. The Bosarges counter that the evidence clearly showed that the[ir] North River trailer was literally falling apart.
Mississippi law dictates that revocation of acceptance may succeed only if there is substantial impairment of the value of the good to the consumer. MISS. CODE ANN. § 75-2-608(1) (1972); see also J.L. Teel Co., Inc. v. Houston United Sales, Inc., 491 So.2d 851, 860 (Miss. 1986); Rester, 491 So.2d at 211; Volkswagen of America v. Novak, 418 So.2d 801, 804 (Miss. 1982). That is, substantial impairment is determined by reference to the particular needs of the [consumer], even though the seller may have no advance knowledge of those needs and even though those needs may change after [an] acceptance. Rester, 491 So.2d at 211 (citing WHITE & SUMMERS, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE § 8-3, at 308 (2d ed. 1980)). The question of whether substantial impairment of the value to the consumer is evidenced is one for the factfinder to resolve. Gentry, 531 So.2d at 1208 (citing Bergenstock v. LeMay's G.M.C. Inc., 372 A.2d 69 (1977)). The factfinder's resolution of this issue should entail a subjective and objective review of the evidence. The subjective component of the factfinder's review involves consideration of the unique circumstances of the consumer. The objective component involves consideration of whether the defect would substantially impair the value of the good to a reasonable person whose unique circumstances are similar to the consumer's. Rester, 491 So.2d at 211 & n. 4 (citing numerous extra-jurisdictional cases); see also Gentry, 531 So.2d at 120. In short, [e]very case must be carefully examined [by factfinder and appellate court alike] on its own merits to determine whether a nonconformity [or defect] is substantial. Bergenstock, 372 A.2d at 73 (emphasis omitted), quoted in Gentry, 531 So.2d at 1208.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Bosarges (the non-movants), the jury's finding that a substantial impairment existed is supported by the evidence and should remain undisturbed. In Gentry, which involved revocation of acceptance of a mobile home, this Court affirmed the jury's finding of substantial impairment. 531 So.2d at 1210. The significance of this Court's affirmance in Gentry is that the home's defects were, comparatively speaking, far less serious than the defects evidenced in the case sub judice. Moreover, the Bosarges' testimony  which the jury was entitled to believe  revealed that each North River repairman who visited their home admitted to the Bosarges that their home was so defective that it ought to be [replaced]. Notably, Ronnie Wilson, a HUD Mobile Home inspector, provided testimony which is also supportive of the jury's finding: QUESTION: [M]y question is: would you live  okay? Heating, cooling, leaking roof, mildew, ice, would you live in that kind of home? WILSON: No, sir, my wife wouldn't let me, sir. Vol. V, at 182. In sum, the record is replete with evidence to support the jury's finding that the Bosarges' home was substantially impaired. This Court therefore affirms on this issue.