Bull Motor Company, v. Murphy

270 S.W.3d 350 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A thief stole a 2005 truck from D. The truck was recovered by the police ninety minutes later and had been driven forty miles. The truck was returned to D's lot. P purchased the truck as a 'new' truck for $33,495. The salesman, Bo Henderson, was unaware that the truck had been stolen at the time of the sale and did not disclose the information to P. P filed suit, alleging that D breached the sales contract by not disclosing the prior theft of the truck. P claimed the vehicle was worth $8,495 less because it had been stolen and driven by the thief. D claimed that P had not suffered any damages. D later moved for summary judgment, contending that P suffered no damages in that he received a 'new' vehicle because Ark. Code Ann. § 23-112-103(22) (Repl. 2004) defines a 'new' vehicle as one whose title has not been transferred to an ultimate purchaser. The circuit court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to trial. P testified that he wanted a 'new' vehicle -- one that had not been stolen or wrecked. P was looking for dependable transportation to work and one would not know how the thief drove the vehicle. P claimed the vehicle was 'used,' not 'new,' because it had been stolen and driven by the thief. When he learned that the truck had been stolen, it had been driven 1000 miles. P called D and asked for another 'new' vehicle but D refused the request. The rear end had to be replaced at 18,000 miles. P admitted that he did not know whether the thief's actions had any effect on the rear end. P stated that he would not have bought the truck for the same price if he had known it to have been stolen. P acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with the truck's interior or exterior or how it drove when he purchased it. He also said that the knowledge that the truck had been stolen had weighed on his mind. D testified that after the truck was recovered, it was thoroughly inspected and tested with no damage found. D said it was simply a mistake that its status was not disclosed to P. D claimed there was no effort to deceive and that he tried to rectify the situation by offering to extend the truck's warranty. D claimed if the thief did any damage to the truck, it would have manifested itself within the first 2,000 miles. He did not know how the thief drove the vehicle but further opined that the truck's value was not affected by being driven for forty miles by the thief. D testified that a 'new' vehicle is one that has never been registered or titled. D was unable to state how much the vehicle's value would be reduced if P had taken the vehicle and driven it for one day before returning it. Bo Henderson testified that he was unaware of the truck's having been stolen. According to Henderson, an appropriate reduction in price would be $ 1,000 to $ 1,500. Dean Sides, a car dealer in Newport, testified that the theft would not reduce the value of the truck. He described the thief's action as 'not much more than a test drive.' He also allowed that a dealer may have to discount the price because of the vehicle's tarnished reputation. He said that it would be something difficult to value. The jury was to determine what the parties meant by the ambiguous term “new vehicle,” and were given the statutory definitions. The jury found for P and awarded $7,000 and D appealed.