J.W. SMITH, ET AL. v. TIMBERPRO INC., ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on Mar 9, 2017

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

W. Timothy Harvey, and Rebecca J. Garman, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, J.W. Smith d/b/a J.W. Smith Logging.

Attorneys 2:

Fred N. McLean, Paris, Tennessee, for the appellee, Don Bush d/b/a Bush Forestry Equipment.

Kenneth R. Shuttleworth and Michelle Handelsman, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Woodland Equipment, Inc.

Judge(s): GOLDIN

J.W. Smith d/b/a J.W. Smith Logging (“Smith”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Don Bush d/b/a Bush Forestry Equipment (“Bush”) and Woodland Equipment, Inc. (“Woodland”). Smith filed this lawsuit against Bush and Woodland seeking damages for breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties. His claims arose from his purchase of an allegedly defective harvester from Woodland. The trial court granted summary judgment to Bush based on the absence of contractual privity between Smith and Bush. The trial court granted summary judgment to Woodland based on the absence of evidence that it breached any express warranties to Smith and based on a disclaimer of implied warranties included in its contract with Smith. On appeal, Smith argues that the record contains issues of disputed fact as to (1) whether Bush was a joint-seller of the harvester with Woodland, (2) whether Woodland and Bush breached express warranties to Smith, and (3) whether the disclaimer of implied warranties was part of Smith’s contract for purchase of the harvester. We agree with the trial court that the record does not contain any evidence of contractual privity between Smith and Bush and therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Bush on all of Smith’s claims. We also agree that the record does not contain evidence that Woodland breached express warranties to Smith and therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Woodland on Smith’s claim for breach of express warranties. We do not agree, however, that the disclaimer of implied warranties was included in Smith’s contract with Woodland for purchase of the harvester. We therefore reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Woodland on Smith’s claim for breach of implied warranties. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.

Attachments: