Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Campbell v. International Micro Systems
Citations: 548 So. 2d 146; 1989 Ala. LEXIS 475; 1989 WL 99022Docket: 88-222
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; June 30, 1989; Alabama; State Supreme Court
An appeal concerning a summary judgment in favor of International Micro Systems (I.M.S.) was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The key issue was whether there was sufficient consideration to form a contract between the appellant, Robert Campbell, and I.M.S. The initial plaintiffs were the Medical Clinic Board of Geneva, Alabama, and dentists Drs. Thomas Parish and Michael Precise. Campbell, who sold I.M.S. software, faced complaints from the dentists about operational problems with the software shortly after purchase. After numerous consultations regarding these issues, I.M.S. initially offered a refund which was later retracted, leading the dentists to sue Campbell for breach of contract and related claims. Campbell then filed a third-party complaint against I.M.S., asserting breach of contract and warranties. The trial court granted summary judgment to I.M.S. on all claims. I.M.S. contended that Campbell provided no consideration for the refund offer, rendering it a gratuitous promise that could be withdrawn without breaching any contract. Campbell did not contest the ruling regarding breach of warranty, focusing solely on the refund offer's consideration. The court, in reviewing the summary judgment, was required to examine all evidence favorably towards Campbell. Testimony from Campbell indicated he had a dealership with I.M.S. but only sold one software package. The court ultimately needed to determine if a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding mutual consideration for the refund offer. Campbell was offered a dealership by I.M.S. to sell its software packages, marking the first sale he made for the company. I.M.S. had a vested interest in ensuring Campbell effectively serviced his customers to maintain its reputation and prevent him from switching to a competitor. I.M.S. engaged with Campbell multiple times to address software issues, providing suggestions and assuring him of a refund if he could not resolve customer problems. Campbell's consideration was his implied promise to support the I.M.S. package and service the dentists' systems. The court found adequate consideration existed based on actions from both parties and concluded that a contract was evident. Consequently, the court determined that Campbell raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the breach of contract claim, making summary judgment inappropriate for that claim. The court affirmed the summary judgment regarding breach of warranty claims but reversed it concerning the breach of contract claim, remanding for further proceedings. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice Hornsby and Justices Jones, Shores, and Houston.