185 So. 3d 413
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- M.C. and Linda Morris contracted with Inside Outside, Inc. (IO) in Jan. 2006 for custom kitchen cabinets and related items, paying about $60,826 in total.
- Morrises expected solid-wood cabinets but were told showroom doors/facings were solid while boxes were engineered wood; Morris admitted being told cabinets would not be completely solid.
- Cabinets were delivered April–May 2006; installation completed June 19, 2006. Morrises and their installer identified defects (cracked doors, wrong colors, missing panel, predrilled holes, clearance issue) and complained to IO.
- IO ordered replacement parts on July 14, 2006; parties’ communications grew contentious and IO offered to remove cabinets and refund money; negotiations over including installer fees failed.
- Morrises attempted to revoke acceptance and sued Sept. 2006 alleging breach of express and implied warranties and seeking damages; after a 2013 bench trial the trial court entered judgment for IO; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morrises validly revoked acceptance of the cabinets | Morrises claim defects substantially impaired value and IO failed to cure, so revocation was proper | IO says Morrises knew defects, IO offered to cure, and was not given a reasonable opportunity to do so | Revocation failed: court found Morrises knew of defects by June 19, IO began cure and was not afforded a reasonable opportunity; judgment for IO affirmed |
| Breach of express warranty (cabinets would be solid wood) | Morrises argue IO expressly warranted solid-wood construction as represented in showroom/finish samples | IO says showroom had mixed construction, sales rep clarified not completely solid, and materials/brochures indicated engineered components | Court rejected challenge—trial court credited IO’s evidence that buyer was informed parts were engineered and buyer did not timely revoke or prove express-warranty breach |
| Breach of implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for particular purpose | Morrises claim goods were unmerchantable and unfit given defects and buyer’s particular purpose | IO contends cabinets were repairable, buyer accepted or revoked improperly, and delays were due to Katrina—no substantial nonconformity warranting relief | Court affirmed denial of implied-warranty claims because Morrises revoked acceptance prematurely and IO was not given reasonable chance to cure |
| Motion to alter/amend and refund claims for special-order items and installer fees | Morrises sought refund for granite deposit, sinks, and installer fees and argued trial court failed to address these | IO notes contracts for sink/granite were special-order with no refunds (store credit only) and no binding settlement was formed | Trial court did not abuse discretion: denied motion; no settlement formed; special-order terms barred refund; installer-fee demand was not part of any agreed settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 2000) (bench-trial factual findings get deference and must be supported by substantial, credible evidence)
- Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac Inc. v. Smith, 523 So. 2d 324 (Miss. 1988) (buyer must give seller reasonable opportunity to cure prior to revocation-based recovery)
- Gast v. Rogers-Dingus Chevrolet, 585 So. 2d 725 (Miss. 1991) (same principle on cure opportunity before revocation)
- Guerdon Indus. Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So. 2d 1202 (Miss. 1988) (seller’s cure right is not unlimited; there comes a point where buyer may revoke)
- Rester v. Morrow, 491 So. 2d 204 (Miss. 1986) (discussing when buyer may discontinue dealings despite seller’s good-faith efforts)
- Brooks v. Roberts, 882 So. 2d 229 (Miss. 2004) (standards for relief on a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend)