77 So. 3d 1140
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- L.T. Land purchased a 1984 Mack truck from McNabb for $8,000 based on McNabb’s claim he rebuilt the lower half of the engine.
- After purchase, the truck smoked and leaked oil; L.T. Land incurred oil-fill costs and paid $461.08 for a repair shop’s overhaul.
- Lee, owner of L.T. Land, testified the truck was purchased to haul timber and gravel; he relied on McNabb’s representations and experience.
- L.T. Land sued for misrepresentation; the circuit court denied misrepresentation but awarded $8,461.08 for implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
- The court later reversed that award, holding the implied warranty claims were not pled or tried with implied consent under Rule 15(b).
- Dissent argues the complaint sufficiently alleged implied warranty terms and that trial conduct evidenced implied consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misrepresentation claim was sole basis for relief | L.T. Land relied on McNabb’s representations for the truck’s engine work. | Evidence did not prove misrepresentation; warranty theories could apply. | Misrepresentation claim alone insufficient; implied warranties not properly pled or tried. |
| Whether Rule 15(b) permitted implied-warranty claims | McNabb impliedly consented to implied-warranty issues by trial conduct. | No implied consent; closing argument cannot substitute for pleadings. | Trial did not establish implied consent; Rule 15(b) not applicable to plead implied warranties. |
| Whether implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arose | Evidence showed buyer’s particular purpose and seller’s knowledge and reliance. | Seller did not select or furnish a particular vehicle for that purpose; no reliance on selection. | No substantial evidence of seller-selected goods for a particular purpose; no arising warranty. |
| Whether the circuit court correctly rendered judgment on the implied-warranty claim | Closing arguments evidenced implied-warranty claims. | Closing argument cannot create implied-consent for unpled claims. | Judgment based on implied-warranty claim reversed; no such breach proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., 935 So.2d 393 (Miss. 2006) (elements of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose)
- Garner v. S & S Livestock Dealers, Inc., 248 So.2d 783 (Miss. 1971) (selection element; warranty requires the seller’s selection for purpose)
- Lacy v. Morrison, 906 So.2d 126 (Miss. 2004) (no warranty where buyer selects the goods themselves)
- Scott v. City of Goodman, 997 So.2d 270 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (pleading liberalism; Rule 8 allows notice pleading)
- Horace Mann Life Ins. Co. v. Nunaley, 960 So.2d 455 (Miss. 2007) (elements of misrepresentation in Mississippi law)
- Garner, Rasch? (cited within opinion as Garner, 248 So.2d 785 for related proposition), 248 So.2d 785 (Miss. 1971) (implied-warranty fitness requires seller’s selection for purpose)
- Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2001) (closing argument cannot form basis for implied-consent)