Court Opinion

ID: 9777445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:11:12.266921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:59.514214
License: Public Domain

Conley Brd, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority that the appellee has failed to prove a defect in the FR Combine that he purchased. It may be that the majority’s trouble is that they do not comprehend the weather conditions during combining season. However, I think everybody should take judicial knowledge of the fact that soy beans are generally harvested from the latter part of October through the early part of December — the record shows that this was the time that Mr. Heflin was attempting to use the combine involved. During that time of the year the days are short, there is much rain and heavy dew caused by the cold nights and heavy humidity. A combine will not work when the beans are wet with dew — appellant’s witness Billy Cruse admits as much when he discussed the reason for the variable speed fan on the combine. Thus with a short time in which to gather beans because of the inclement weather and the short work days caused by heavy dew, any breakdown of a combine materially interrupts the harvest of the bean crop. Another fact that the majority seemingly overlooks is that the combine delivered, although purchased in 1971, had apparently been on appellant’s lot for some time since the cab was rusty and the drive belt was weather beaten. Heflin testified that appellant did not deliver the combine that he looked at when he made his purchase — this fact was controverted by appellant’s salesman Mr. William - but of course in reviewing the evidence we are supposed to ta that view of the evidence most favorable to the jury’s verdict. With respect to the operation of the particular combine that was delivered, the proof is undisputed that it would lock down if a chunk should happen not to be lined up properly when it went into the combine. It is conceded by all witnesses that a small chunk did lock the combine down and that in so doing it bent the main auger flight. Appellant contended throughout that its warranty did not cover the cost of repairing the bent auger flight. With respect to the operation of the combine Heflin testified that it choked down in combining clover, Bahia grass and soy beans. With reference to the combine’s performance in the harvesting of soy beans he testified: “Q. All right, and would you explain that to the jury and what occurred? A. Well, I started combining beans. I worked about an hour and I picked up a little old chunk. It wasn’t as big as a quart fruit jar and it twisted my auger, the big auger that pulls foliage into the combine, and I had to take the combine to a neighbor’s house there and take the auger completely out of it and replace the bolts. They had stripped out. After it got that chunk, well, it couldn’t pull it through and it stripped the bolts out of the end of the auger. Q. What? Just broke down? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right, sir, then what did you do? A. Well, I got started the next day and went back out there and combined about three or four hours and I picked up another little old chunk. Of course, we’ve got a lot of little old chunks in this country. And it stripped the bolts out again. Q. All right, broke down again? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then what did you do? A. I had to take it in and fix it at the same place and I got that fixed and I went on and combined for, I’d say, a hundred acres. Q. All right, sir, a hundred acres. Then what occurred? A. I picked up too much foliage in another man’s field. Q. Where did you go? Did you finish this combining? A. I finished that field, yes, sir. Q. Then where did you go? A. I went to a man over close to Hampton, Lucian Goodwin. Q. Allright, sir, what did you do there? A. He had a hundred acres of beans 1 was combining and it picked up too much foliage and it stripped them bolts again. I was down another day.” Mr. Heflin testified that the chunks in his field were comparable to the fields in the area and that the smaller Allis-Chalmers combine that he traded in on the one in question performed satisfactorily. Appellant’s witness Billy Cruse who explained that none of the Allis-Chalmers combines have ever had an auger slip clutch on the header then testified as follows: “Q. Let me direct you for a second. Does FR — Does a 1971 FR, does it have a slip chain drive on it? A. From the factory.” It’s true that in discussing the cost for Mr. Heflin to change from a chain drive to a belt drive that Billy Cruse first stated: “He would have had to have purchased two pulleys and one belt, approximately $30.00 or something or another in this range.” In subsequent examination by the same witness the following occured: “Q. No, sir, there’s been testimony about a belt breaking due to weather, for instance, to wear due to weather. A. After you once replaced a weathered belt you should have the equivalent to a new machine. Q. Would you compare it to the fan belt on a automobile? A. Yes, anything can weather. Their belts, I mean, it would be compared to a fan belt. Q. What’s the cost of a belt? A. They vary widely. Fan belts on them would be maybe $2.50, where the engine drive belt would be $85 or $90, anywhere in that range. [Emphasis mine.] Appellant’s shop foreman testified that it would take $250 to replace the bent auger flight. Thus we can see from the foregoing testimony that a 1971 model FR combine had a “slip chain drive on it” to protect the auger and prevent the break-downs of which appellee complained. There is testimony from which the jury could have found that appellant did not deliver a 1971 model machine and certainly not the machine at which appellee looked in making the purchase. Furthermore, there is ample testimony that it took a whole day to repair the combine in question after it “locked down” on a chunk. Of course, nobody would want a passenger automobile if it' got bent every time they had a flat and it took all day to repair the same — I don’t think any equipment company should expect a farmer to spend all day repairing his combine after picking up a chunk that would ordinarily go through and be automatically ejected — obviously Allis-Chalmers does not expect to sell them to farmers because it installed the “slip chain drive” on the 1971 models. Finally the majority take Mr. Heflin’s testimony completely out of context and state that he did not properly revoke his acceptance of the combine within the purview of the Uniform Commercial Code. It must be remembered that not only did appellant’s witness Williams understand that Heflin had revoked his acceptance but Heflin had already written a letter to Allis-Chalmers notifying them to come and get the combine. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the statement was made by a man with no formal education and to appellant’s agents when they were trying to get Heflin to reconsider and keep the machine. Furthermore Heflin also testified with reference to contact by Cruse and Manes on January 7th as follows: “Q. All right, now I’m going to ask you what, if any, additional or other contact you had with anybody at Stimson or Allis-Chalmers that you remember? A. Well, they came over. 1 don’t know what month it was. And tried to get me to keep the combine and I told them I didn’t want it. Q. Do you know who came over? A. I can’t think of his name. It was a salesman from Mississippi. Q. Okay, fine.” In all of the appeals that have been before this court we have heretofore considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s finding. When we view this record from that view point there is obviously ample evidence to sustain the jury’s finding. To do otherwise we must consider the evidence out of context and most strongly against the person in whose favor the jury made its findings. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.(1)  Holt, J., joins in this dissent.  In my disposition of this case I do not reach the issue with respect to 'Hudspeth Motors v. Wilkinson, 238 Ark. 410, 382 S.W. 2d 191 (1964), but if I did 1 would agree that it should be overruled.