Parker v. Bell Ford, Inc.
425 So.2d 1101, 35 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1171 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Alabama Code § 7-2-607(3)(a) (UCC), a buyer must, within a reasonable time after discovering a breach of warranty, notify the seller of the breach or be barred from any remedy, and this notice is a condition precedent to recovery.
Facts:
- On August 6, 1979, A.B. Parker purchased a 1979 Ford F-100 pickup truck from Bell Ford, Inc., which was manufactured by Ford Motor Company, Inc.
- Parker made several complaints to Bell Ford about excessive tire wear that required tire replacement after approximately 4,000 miles of use.
- Bell Ford provided Parker with a purchase order to have the vehicle aligned at Combs Dailey, an alignment shop, where repairs were allegedly made.
- The work performed at the alignment shop did not cure Parker's complaint, and his second set of tires had to be replaced shortly thereafter due to continued excessive wear.
- Parker never returned the vehicle to Bell Ford for further repairs and did not register any additional complaints with Bell Ford or Ford Motor Company after the alignment shop visit until initiating a lawsuit.
- After the lawsuit was filed, an inspection by Peach Ford, Inc. determined that the vehicle had a defective wheel housing causing the excessive tire wear.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 1, 1980, A.B. Parker filed a complaint in the trial court against Bell Ford, Inc. and Ford Motor Company, Inc., asserting claims for misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of warranty, including implied warranty of merchantability.
- The trial court granted Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss the count involving implied warranty of merchantability, leading Parker to amend his complaint.
- After a trial before a jury, the trial court granted the defendants' (Bell Ford and Ford Motor Company) motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of Bell Ford and Ford Motor Company based on the directed verdict.
- Parker appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by directing a verdict for the defendants on breach of warranty claims when the plaintiff failed to provide the seller with notice of a continuing defect after initial repair attempts, as required by Alabama Code § 7-2-607(3)(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Per curiam
No, the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendants because A.B. Parker failed to provide adequate notice of the continuing defect. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that under Alabama Code § 7-2-607(3)(a), a buyer's timely notification of a breach is a condition precedent to any remedy for breach of warranty. Parker admitted he did not contact Ford Motor Company about the problem, nor did he return the vehicle to Bell Ford after retrieving it from the alignment shop where initial repairs were attempted. Bell Ford therefore had no notice that the previous repair attempt had failed or that the tire wear problem persisted until it received the summons for Parker's lawsuit six months later. The court explained that the notice requirement serves two purposes: to facilitate settlement through negotiation and to minimize prejudice to the seller by allowing them an opportunity to cure the defect, inspect the goods, investigate the claim, or prepare a defense. This case is distinguishable from situations where notice was given but its timeliness was disputed, as here, no notice of the continuing defect was provided. The court found no evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably infer that Parker gave notice of the defect prior to filing suit, thus justifying the directed verdict.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the strict application of the Uniform Commercial Code's notice requirement (UCC § 2-607(3)(a)) in Alabama. It clarifies that a buyer's complaint about an initial defect and acceptance of a repair attempt does not relieve them of the duty to provide subsequent notice if the repair proves ineffective and the defect persists. The ruling underscores the importance of ongoing communication between buyer and seller in warranty disputes, placing a substantial burden on buyers to proactively inform sellers of continuing problems to preserve their legal remedies. This decision serves as a critical reminder that timely and specific notice is a non-negotiable prerequisite for pursuing breach of warranty claims, protecting sellers' opportunities to mitigate damages and preventing 'sandbagging' by buyers.
