Court Opinion

ID: 9454864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:02:36.246055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:21.553558
License: Public Domain

LAY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The law in Mississippi in my judgment requires a reversal on the disclaimer issue. The law in Mississippi is that “ * * * [t]he disclaimer must clearly and unequivocally describe the warranties it disclaims, and uncertainties in the language used must be resolved against the disclaimer.” Grey v. Hayes-Sammons Chem. Co., 310 F.2d 291, 300 (5 Cir. 1962). The district court’s opinion demonstrates that the disclaimer was equivocal and not clear. The district court stated:
“It is more probable than not that the ‘sale or use’ language of paragraph ‘9’ was employed because the parties intended the disclaimer to apply to damages arising out of all possible dispositions of defendant’s products and the only possible dispositions of said products which occurred to either of them was ‘sale or use.’ ” (My emphasis.)
The majority opinion acknowledges that the incorporation by reference of section 8 into section 9 which is necessary to find an effective disclaimer, “could have been made with greater clarity.”
I would hold that disclaimer as to the retail dealer is patently ambiguous and equivocal and “construing it strictly” (310 F.2d at 301) does not apply to plaintiff in this case. I would remand the case to the trial court to ascertain whether any implied warranty of merchantable quality or fitness for use has been breached and if so the damages, if any, that may have proximately resulted therefrom.