Tribe v. Peterson
964 P.2d 1238 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Whether a seller's representation constitutes an express warranty or is merely the seller's opinion is a question of fact for the jury. A representation that expresses the seller’s opinion, belief, or judgment about a product's characteristics, rather than a positive and unequivocal statement of fact, does not create an express warranty.
Facts:
- Larry Painter, an experienced horseman, purchased Moccasin Badger (Badger) and found the horse to be 'plumb gentle.'
- Mr. and Mrs. Peterson bought Badger after Mrs. Peterson rode him and found him to be very calm and gentle.
- The Petersons decided to sell Badger and advertised him in a sale brochure as a 'quiet and extra gentle gelding overly kind which makes him a definite kids prospect.'
- Steve Tribe attended the sale with his associate, Steve Stoddard, to find a gentle horse for inexperienced riders.
- At the sale, Stoddard asked Mr. Peterson if the horse had 'any buck in him,' to which Peterson allegedly responded 'No,' and stated the horse had never bucked with him or previous owners. The parties disputed whether Peterson 'guaranteed' the horse would never buck.
- Steve Tribe purchased Badger believing he had been guaranteed that the horse would never buck.
- After the purchase, Badger threw Mrs. Tribe and, ten days later, threw Mr. Tribe, causing him to shatter his wrist.
Procedural Posture:
- Steve Tribe sued Mr. and Mrs. Peterson in a Wyoming district court (trial court) for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Tribe filed a motion for summary judgment on the express warranty claim, which the district court denied.
- The case proceeded to a three-day jury trial.
- The jury found in favor of the Petersons on all claims.
- Tribe moved for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The district court denied Tribe's post-trial motions.
- Tribe (appellant) appealed the denial of his post-trial motions to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, with the Petersons as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a seller's statements describing a horse as 'gentle' and that it has never bucked create an express warranty that the horse will never buck in the future, as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Taylor
No. The seller's statements did not create an express warranty as a matter of law because whether a statement is an affirmation of fact or merely an opinion is a question for the trier of fact. The court reasoned that an express warranty requires a 'positive and unequivocal statement concerning the thing sold,' not simply the seller's opinion, belief, or judgment. Here, the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that the descriptions of Badger as 'gentle' were either well-founded opinions based on past experience or, if considered a warranty, that the warranty was not breached. The horse's disposition could be affected by a new rider or environment, and testimony from all previous owners and an examining veterinarian confirmed the horse's gentle nature. Given the conflicting testimony about whether a 'guarantee' was made, the jury was entitled to believe the Petersons' denial, making its verdict reasonable.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental distinction in contract law between an express warranty (an affirmation of fact) and mere puffery (a seller's opinion). It illustrates that in sales involving goods with inherent unpredictability, such as live animals, courts are reluctant to construe statements about temperament as absolute guarantees of future performance. The decision gives significant deference to the jury's role in determining the seller's intent and the buyer's reasonable understanding based on the context of the sale. This precedent makes it more difficult for buyers to succeed on breach of warranty claims based on subjective descriptions unless a clear, unequivocal guarantee was made.
