Court Opinion

ID: 9722337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:26:12.451979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:34.277135
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Although I join in that portion of the opinion which affirms the judgment against Midwest Commodities, Inc., under the breach of contract theory, I would also affirm the judgment against Midwest Commodities, Inc., and Tofflemire on the theories of intentional and negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. Without belaboring the evidence, I conclude that it supports the trial court’s findings on these theories. I find the following comments made by the trial court at the conclusion of the trial to be revealing:
But one thing that has been proven is that he’s [Littau] paid out $9,450 for just about worthless seed.... The individuals involved have pulled a scam here. You can tell it by the different representations they made that were not true.

These are intelligent individuals; they knew it was not their own variety; they knew that they were misrepresenting the seed.
In making these comments the trial court referred to Tofflemire’s letter directing Lit-tau to procure a copy of the 1978 South Dakota Preliminary Certified Seed Directory. Although it is true, as pointed out in *646the majority opinion, that the directory indicates that the inclusion of a grower’s name therein does not necessarily mean the grower’s seed is certified, it also states that: “The growers listed will, therefore, only accept tentative orders that will be filled if seed is finally certified, which fact will be designated by the certificate.” In the light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the transaction, I believe that it was eminently reasonable for the trial court to draw the inference that Littau was led to believe that the sunflower seed was in fact certified. Appellants Midwest and Toffle-mire should not now be heard to say that Littau should not have relied upon these representations.
I agree with the majority opinion that there is not sufficient evidence in the record to impose personal liability against appellant Pease. I would therefore affirm the judgment against Midwest and Tofflemire (the judgment standing unappealed as to defendant Lefforge).