Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff sued an automobile dealership and the manufacturer for breach of warranty after the engine of her purchased vehicle failed. The plaintiff contended that the dealership was liable for the manufacturer's express warranty, which was an integral part of the sales contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the dealership, ruling it was not liable for the manufacturer's warranty. This decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the dealership should be held accountable under Mississippi Code § 75-2-313(1), as the warranty was used to promote the sale. The court, however, determined that the dealership acted merely as an agent of the manufacturer, without any separate obligation for the warranty. Conducting a de novo review under M.R.C.P. 56(c), the court found no material facts in dispute, thus affirming the summary judgment. The appeal costs were assessed to the plaintiff, with the judgment receiving concurrence from several justices and one dissent without a written opinion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Agency in Warranty Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the dealer acted solely as an agent for the manufacturer and bore no independent responsibility for the warranty.
Reasoning: The court acknowledged that Paul Moak used the warranty to entice the purchase; however, it found no evidence suggesting that Paul Moak accepted any responsibility for the warranty beyond acting as an agent for Volvo.
Breach of Express Warrantysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether an automobile dealer can be held liable for a manufacturer's express warranty used as a selling point.
Reasoning: Wright appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that an automobile dealer is not liable for breaches of express warranty made by the manufacturer at the time of sale.
Summary Judgment Review Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment under M.R.C.P. 56(c) and found no material facts in dispute.
Reasoning: The court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment under the standard of M.R.C.P. 56(c) and concluded there were no material facts in dispute that warranted preventing the summary judgment.