Opinion ID: 1957633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the circuit err by affirming the county court's exclusion of testimony regarding spot delivery?

Text: ¶ 7. The Dealership contends the Dorsey transaction was a spot-delivery and the conditional language in the purchase order was a condition precedent to its obligation to sell the car. The Dealership further contends that by excluding testimony regarding the conditional nature of the contract, the trial court prevented it from presenting its primary defense. ¶ 8. The trial judge's refusal to allow the Dealership to question witnesses and characterize the transaction as conditional must be viewed through the filter of Rule 401. ¶ 9. M.R.E. 401 defines relevant evidence as follows: Relevant Evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. ¶ 10. The threshold for admissibility of relevant evidence is not great. Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 15 (Miss. 2000). Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact. Id. If it has probative value, the law favors its admission. Holladay v. Holladay, 776 So.2d 662, 676 (Miss.2000). However, determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. Abrams v. Marlin Firearms Co., 838 So.2d 975, 979 (Miss.2003). ¶ 11. The Dorseys objected to any further testimony supporting the argument that the transaction was a spot-delivery and thus conditional. Further, the Dorseys argued that the retail installment contract did not contain any conditional language and that it did not refer to the purchase order. The objection was based not only on the Retail Contract (which was not conditional), but also on the fact the Dealership had actually transferred title to the Dorseys. Furthermore, the Dealership admitted through the testimony of one of its managers, Wayne Cumbest, that in a typical spot-delivery transaction the buyer does not receive title. That is to say, the transaction is not a spot-delivery if the buyer receives title. ¶ 12. We are persuaded that the trial judge's ruling was not error. We have carefully reviewed the purchase order relied upon by the Dealership, and we do not find the language to be a condition precedent. The language relied upon by the Dealership states: DEALER SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATED TO SELL UNTIL APPROVAL OF THE TERMS HEROF(sic) IS GIVEN BY A BANK OR FINANCE COMPANY WILLING TO PURCHASE A RETAIL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO BASED ON SUCH TERMS. ¶ 13. This provision merely provides that the Dealership is not obligated to sell until the approval of the terms is given by a bank or finance company. Further, the Dealership's obligation to sell suspends until the requirements of the provision are met. However, not being under an obligation to sell the automobile did not prevent the Dealership from selling to the Dorseys. Therefore, the question then becomes whether the Dealership chose to do that which it was not obligated to do. ¶ 14. The trial court found, as a matter of law, that the transaction with the Dorseys was a sale. Based upon the considerable evidence supporting a sale on March 7, 2000, and the dearth of any evidence to the contrary, this Court is unable to find that the trial court was in error.