John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge.
An unknown thief took a new truck from the lot of appellant Bull Motor Company (BMC) and drove it for a short period of time before the truck was recovered and returned to BMC. BMC subsequently sold the truck as “new” to appellee Jason Murphy without disclosing this history. Upon discovering the true history, Murphy filed suit. A jury awarded Murphy $7,000 in damages. In this appeal from that verdict, BMC raises four points for reversal. We affirm.
Background
On December 8, 2004, a thief stole a 2005 truck from BMC. The truck was recovered by the police ninety minutes later and had been driven forty miles. The truck was returned to BMC’s lot. On January 4, 2005, Murphy 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 Murphy.
On March 10, 2005, Murphy filed suit, alleging that BMC breached the sales contract by not disclosing the prior theft of the truck. The complaint also asserted that the vehicle was worth $8,495 less because it had been stolen and driven by the thief. BMC denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted that Murphy had not suffered any damages. BMC later moved for summary judgment, contending that Murphy 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.
The Evidence
At trial, Murphy testified that he wanted a “new” vehicle — one that had not been stolen or wrecked. This was important to him, he said, because he was looking for dependable transportation to work and one would not know how the thief drove the vehicle. He opined that the vehicle he purchased was “used,” not “new,” because it had been stolen and driven by the thief. Murphy stated that, when he learned that the truck had been stolen, he called BMC and asked for another “new” vehicle but that they refused the request. At that time, he had driven the truck approximately 1,000 miles. Over BMC’s objection, he testified that the rear end had to be replaced at 18,000 miles. He acknowledged that he did not know whether the thief s actions had any effect on the rear end. Murphy stated that he would not have bought the truck for the same price if he had known it to have been stolen. He said that the price would have had to be reduced some $8,000 to $10,000 before he bought the stolen truck. He also said that it did not matter how long the thief had the truck or how far it was driven because it was still a “used” truck. On cross-examination, he 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.
Tony Bull, owner of BMC, testified that, after the truck was recovered, it was thoroughly inspected and tested with no damage found. He also said that he was sure that Bo Henderson did not know that the track had been stolen and explained that it was simply a mistake that it was not disclosed to Murphy. He said that there was no effort to deceive Murphy and that he tried to rectify the situation by offering to extend the track’s warranty. He opined that, if the thief did any damage to the track, 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 track’s value was not affected by being driven for forty miles by the thief. Bull stated that the track’s being driven by the thief does not characterize it as a “used” vehicle because a “new” vehicle is one that has never been registered or titled. On cross-examination, Bull was unable to state how much the vehicle’s value would be reduced if Murphy 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 at the time he sold it to Murphy and asserted that he would have disclosed that fact to Murphy had he known it. According to Henderson, there was nothing in the truck’s record to indicate that it had been stolen because it had not been damaged. He also said that the average customer would select the truck that had not been stolen and that it would probably have been necessary to reduce the price in order to sell the stolen truck. According to Henderson, an appropriate reduction would be $1,000 to $1,500.
Dean Sides, a car dealer in Newport, testified that a “new” vehicle is one that has not been sold or titled. He opined that the theft would not reduce the value of the truck. He described the thiefs 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.
James Smith, BMC’s service manager, testified that he tested Murphy’s truck and did not find any problems. He asserted that any damage to the rear end of the truck would have immediately been discovered. He acknowledged that the computer did not check the rear differential and that there could be damage that went undiscovered.
Over BMC’s objection, the circuit court gave AMI 2412 concerning ambiguity in the meaning of the term “new vehicle” and that it was the jury’s job to determine what the parties meant by that term. The jury was also instructed on the statutory definitions of the term “new vehicle” and “used vehicle.” The jury returned a verdict signed by ten jurors finding in favor of Murphy and awarding him $7,000 in damages. BMC filed a motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting that there was no substantial evidence to support the award of damages or that BMC did not sell Murphy a “new motor vehicle.” The motion for new trial was based on asserted error in allowing Murphy to testify that the truck needed axle repairs at 18,000 miles; that the testimony that the truck decreased in value by $8,495 was speculative; and that the damages award of $7,000 was against the preponderance of the evidence. The circuit court denied the motion. Judgment was entered on the jury verdict, and the circuit court awarded Murphy attorney’s fees of $4,164. This appeal followed.
Arguments on Appeal
In its first point, BMC argues that the circuit court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment, its motion for a directed verdict, and its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the truck was, as a matter of law, “new.”
We cannot address the summary-judgment issue. The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable order; even after there has been a trial on the merits, the denial order is not subject to review on appeal. Bharodia v. Pledger, 340 Ark. 547, 11 S.W.3d 540 (2000); Elliott v. Hurst, 307 Ark. 134, 817 S.W.2d 877 (1991).
BMC’s argument is that the meaning of the phrase “new vehicle” is determined, as a matter of law, by the statutory definition contained in section 23-112-103(22). We disagree.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge.
An unknown thief took a new truck from the lot of appellant Bull Motor Company (BMC) and drove it for a short period of time before the truck was recovered and returned to BMC. BMC subsequently sold the truck as “new” to appellee Jason Murphy without disclosing this history. Upon discovering the true history, Murphy filed suit. A jury awarded Murphy $7,000 in damages. In this appeal from that verdict, BMC raises four points for reversal. We affirm.
Background
On December 8, 2004, a thief stole a 2005 truck from BMC. The truck was recovered by the police ninety minutes later and had been driven forty miles. The truck was returned to BMC’s lot. On January 4, 2005, Murphy 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 Murphy.
On March 10, 2005, Murphy filed suit, alleging that BMC breached the sales contract by not disclosing the prior theft of the truck. The complaint also asserted that the vehicle was worth $8,495 less because it had been stolen and driven by the thief. BMC denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted that Murphy had not suffered any damages. BMC later moved for summary judgment, contending that Murphy 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.
The Evidence
At trial, Murphy testified that he wanted a “new” vehicle — one that had not been stolen or wrecked. This was important to him, he said, because he was looking for dependable transportation to work and one would not know how the thief drove the vehicle. He opined that the vehicle he purchased was “used,” not “new,” because it had been stolen and driven by the thief. Murphy stated that, when he learned that the truck had been stolen, he called BMC and asked for another “new” vehicle but that they refused the request. At that time, he had driven the truck approximately 1,000 miles. Over BMC’s objection, he testified that the rear end had to be replaced at 18,000 miles. He acknowledged that he did not know whether the thief s actions had any effect on the rear end. Murphy stated that he would not have bought the truck for the same price if he had known it to have been stolen. He said that the price would have had to be reduced some $8,000 to $10,000 before he bought the stolen truck. He also said that it did not matter how long the thief had the truck or how far it was driven because it was still a “used” truck. On cross-examination, he 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.
Tony Bull, owner of BMC, testified that, after the truck was recovered, it was thoroughly inspected and tested with no damage found. He also said that he was sure that Bo Henderson did not know that the track had been stolen and explained that it was simply a mistake that it was not disclosed to Murphy. He said that there was no effort to deceive Murphy and that he tried to rectify the situation by offering to extend the track’s warranty. He opined that, if the thief did any damage to the track, 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 track’s value was not affected by being driven for forty miles by the thief. Bull stated that the track’s being driven by the thief does not characterize it as a “used” vehicle because a “new” vehicle is one that has never been registered or titled. On cross-examination, Bull was unable to state how much the vehicle’s value would be reduced if Murphy 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 at the time he sold it to Murphy and asserted that he would have disclosed that fact to Murphy had he known it. According to Henderson, there was nothing in the truck’s record to indicate that it had been stolen because it had not been damaged. He also said that the average customer would select the truck that had not been stolen and that it would probably have been necessary to reduce the price in order to sell the stolen truck. According to Henderson, an appropriate reduction would be $1,000 to $1,500.
Dean Sides, a car dealer in Newport, testified that a “new” vehicle is one that has not been sold or titled. He opined that the theft would not reduce the value of the truck. He described the thiefs 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.
James Smith, BMC’s service manager, testified that he tested Murphy’s truck and did not find any problems. He asserted that any damage to the rear end of the truck would have immediately been discovered. He acknowledged that the computer did not check the rear differential and that there could be damage that went undiscovered.
Over BMC’s objection, the circuit court gave AMI 2412 concerning ambiguity in the meaning of the term “new vehicle” and that it was the jury’s job to determine what the parties meant by that term. The jury was also instructed on the statutory definitions of the term “new vehicle” and “used vehicle.” The jury returned a verdict signed by ten jurors finding in favor of Murphy and awarding him $7,000 in damages. BMC filed a motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting that there was no substantial evidence to support the award of damages or that BMC did not sell Murphy a “new motor vehicle.” The motion for new trial was based on asserted error in allowing Murphy to testify that the truck needed axle repairs at 18,000 miles; that the testimony that the truck decreased in value by $8,495 was speculative; and that the damages award of $7,000 was against the preponderance of the evidence. The circuit court denied the motion. Judgment was entered on the jury verdict, and the circuit court awarded Murphy attorney’s fees of $4,164. This appeal followed.
Arguments on Appeal
In its first point, BMC argues that the circuit court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment, its motion for a directed verdict, and its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the truck was, as a matter of law, “new.”
We cannot address the summary-judgment issue. The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable order; even after there has been a trial on the merits, the denial order is not subject to review on appeal. Bharodia v. Pledger, 340 Ark. 547, 11 S.W.3d 540 (2000); Elliott v. Hurst, 307 Ark. 134, 817 S.W.2d 877 (1991).
BMC’s argument is that the meaning of the phrase “new vehicle” is determined, as a matter of law, by the statutory definition contained in section 23-112-103(22). We disagree. It is axiomatic that the laws in force when and where a contract is made and to be performed enter into and form part of the contract. This rule is limited, however, to laws that are applicable to the contract. Union Indem. Co. v. Forgey & Hanson, 174 Ark. 1110, 298 S.W. 1032 (1927); see Wing v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Ass’n, 15 Cal. 2d 472, 101 P.2d 1099 (1940); Williston on Contracts § 3019 (2007). Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-112-103(22) is not applicable to an agreement of sale between an automobile dealer and a consumer. That statute is part of the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission Act, which was expressly intended to create an administrative agency to license persons and entities involved in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of motor vehicles so as to “[p]revent frauds, unfair practices, discrimination, impositions, and other abuses upon the citizens of Arkansas.” Ark. Code Ann. § 23-112-102(b)(l).1
The purposes for the differing requirements are many, but chief among them is to prevent used auto dealerships from operating as fly-by-night businesses that engage in the sort of fraud commonly associated with such concerns. See Ark. Code Ann. § 23-112-601. It is instructive in this context to note that the definition of “used motor vehicle” in § 23-112-602(8) includes not only those vehicles that previously have been sold and titled, but also any vehicle that has been “so used as to have become what is commonly known as a secondhand or previously owned motor vehicle.” Thus, the Act itself contemplates a vehicle that has never been titled but is nevertheless “secondhand” by virtue of the use or abuse to which it has been subjected — like the vehicle in this case.
The purpose of the rule incorporating applicable law into every contract is to comply with the federal constitutional prohibition against the enactment of laws impairing contractual obligations, not to impose by law a particular meaning to a term used in the agreement. See Ellison v. Tubb, 295 Ark. 312, 749 S.W.2d 650 (1988); Robards v. Brown, 40 Ark. 423 (1883).
Section 201 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts makes this plain. It states:
(1) Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.
(2) Where the parties have attached different meanings to a promise or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with the meaning attached by one of them if at the time the agreement was made
(a) that party did not know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other knew the meaning attached by the first party; or
(b) that party had no reason to know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other had reason to know the meaning attached by the first party.
(3) Except as stated in this Section, neither party is bound by the meaning attached by the other, even though the result may be a failure of mutual assent.
The Comment to this section deals with the precise situation that is before us in this case:
a. The meaning of words. Words are used as conventional symbols of mental states, with standardized meanings based on habitual or customary practice. Unless a different intention is shown, language is interpreted in accordance with its generally prevailing meaning. See § 202(3). Usages of varying degrees of generality are recorded in dictionaries, but there are substantial differences between English and American usages and between usages in different parts of the United States. Differences of usage also exist in various localities and in different social, economic, religious and ethnic groups. All these usages change over time, and persons engaged in transactions with each other often develop temporary usages peculiar to themselves. Moreover, most words are commonly used in more than one sense.
b. The problem of context. Uncertainties in the meaning of words are ordinarily gready reduced by the context in which they are used. The same is true of other conventional symbols, and the meaning of conduct not used as a conventional symbol is even more dependent on its setting. But the context of words and other conduct is seldom exactly the same for two different people, since connotations depend on the entire past experience and the attitudes and expectations of the person whose understanding is in question. In general, the context relevant to interpretation of a bargain is the context common to both parties. More precisely, the question of meaning in cases of misunderstanding depends on an inquiry into what each party knew or had reason to know, as stated in Subsections (2) and (3). See § 20 and Illustrations. Ordinarily a party has reason to know of meanings in general usage.
c. Mutual understanding. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the primary search is for a common meaning of the parties, not a meaning imposed on them by the law. To the extent that a mutual understanding is displaced by government regulation, the resulting obligation does not rest on “interpretation” in the sense used here. The objective of interpretation in the general law of contracts is to carry out the understanding of the parties rather than to impose obligations on them contrary to their understanding: “the courts do not make a contract for the parties.” Ordinarily, therefore, the mutual understanding of the parties prevails even where the contractual term has been defined differently by statute or administrative regulation. But parties who used a standardized term in an unusual sense obviously run the risk that their agreement will be misinterpreted in litigation.
d. Misunderstanding. Subsection (2) follows the terminology of § 20, referring to the understanding of each party as the meaning “attached” by him to a term of a promise or agreement. Where the rules stated in Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply, neither party is bound by the understanding of the other. The result may be an entire failure of agreement or a failure to agree as to a term. There may be a binding contract despite failure to agree as to a term, if the term is not essential or if it can be supplied. See § 204. In some cases a party can waive the misunderstanding and enforce the contract in accordance with the understanding of the other party.
The generally prevailing meaning of a “new” vehicle does not include a vehicle that has been stolen. See Greiner Motor Co. v. Sumpter, 244 Ark. 736, 427 S.W.2d 8 (1968). Here, BMC had reason to know this, and Murphy had no reason to know that the definition of a new vehicle, contained in the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission Act for purposes of distinguishing between new and used car dealers, provided otherwise.
BMC’s second point is that the circuit court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment, its motion for a directed verdict, and its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Murphy failed to prove the difference in the fair market value of the truck as represented and as received.
Again, we cannot consider the summary-judgment issue. BMC’s argument is that the truck was not damaged and, therefore, Murphy’s testimony as to the value of the truck being decreased was pure speculation. Here, contrary to BMC’s argument, there was proof of damage to the vehicle other than in Murphy’s mind. BMC witness Dean Sides testified that a vehicle that had been stolen and returned to the dealer undamaged would nevertheless have a tarnished reputation and that a reduction in price may be necessary to sell the vehicle. Bo Henderson testified that a reduction in price of $1,000 to $1,500 would be appropriate. Murphy testified that, in his opinion, the value of the truck had been diminished by between $8,000 and $10,000 by being driven by the thief. It is well-settled Arkansas law that the owner of personal property is qualified to give an opinion as to its value. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc. v. Brown, 283 Ark. 1, 670 S.W.2d 441 (1984). No special training or occupation is necessary to qualify a witness to estimate values. Naples Rest., Inc. v. Coberly Ford, 259 Cal. App. 2d 881, 66 Cal. Rptr. 835 (1968).2 The sales contract established the fair market price of the truck and Murphy’s testimony established the difference in the actual value at the time of purchase. Therefore, the jury could properly award Murphy $7,000 in damages.
For its third point on appeal, BMC contends that the circuit court erred in allowing Murphy to testify that the rear end on the truck had to be replaced at 18,000 miles. Murphy acknowledged that he did not know if the problem was caused by the thief. BMC objected to Murphy’s testimony on the basis that it was irrelevant and that there was no proof that the problem was caused by the thief s actions. The circuit court overruled the objection, finding the testimony relevant. The standard of review on admission of evidence is abuse of discretion. FMC Corp., Inc. v. Helton, 360 Ark. 465, 202 S.W.3d 490 (2005).
The circuit court only ruled that the evidence was relevant; it did not address the other grounds of BMC’s objection. We believe that the testimony was relevant because it showed the doubts Murphy had about the vehicle and why, in his opinion, the value was reduced from the contract price. Second, BMC also addressed the subject in its examination of its own witnesses, Tony Bull, Dean Sides, and James Smith. Here, BMC’s witnesses discussed the likelihood of a vehicle’s rear end needing replacement at 18,000 miles. In such circumstances, there is no prejudice. See Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 345 Ark. 430, 47 S.W.3d 866 (2001); Aaron v. State, 300 Ark. 13, 775 S.W.2d 894 (1989).
BMC’s final point is that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury based on AMI 2412, concerning an ambiguity in a contract term. Our courts have consistently held that a party is entitled to a jury instruction when it is a correct statement of the law and when there is some basis in the evidence to support giving the instruction. See, e.g., Byme, Inc. v. Ivy, 367 Ark. 451, 241 S.W.3d 229 (2006).
Here, the jury was instructed as to AMI 2412 as follows:
The parties dispute the meaning of the term “new vehicle” in their contract. It is your duty to interpret the contract to give effect to what the parties intended when they made their agreement. In determining the meaning of the language, you must take into consideration the language of the contract, the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract, the subj ect of the contract, the purpose of the contract, the situation and relation of the parties at the time the contract was made, the parties’ subsequent course of performance. You should give the words of the contract their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning, unless it is clear that certain words were intended to be used in a technical sense.
The jury was also instructed on the statutory definitions of “new” and “used” vehicles. Because we have held that the definition of the term “new vehicle” is not determined by reference to the statute but, rather, by the parties’ intentions, the circuit court properly gave the disputed instruction because the jury was told to consider the circumstances in making the contract, that is, the fact that the truck was first driven by a thief for some forty miles prior to being sold to Murphy, to determine whether Murphy received a “new” truck.
Affirmed.
Gladwin, Bird, Vaught, and Baker, JJ., agree. Robbins and Heffley, JJ., agree in part; dissent in part. Griffen and Marshall, JJ., dissent.