{
  "id": 1656460,
  "name": "Little Rock Road Machinery Company v. Frazier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Little Rock Road Machinery Co. v. Frazier",
  "decision_date": "1952-11-10",
  "docket_number": "4-9904",
  "first_page": "182",
  "last_page": "184",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ark. 182"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "252 S.W.2d 404"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 367,
    "char_count": 5090,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "sha256": "4ab8b909c6d153248a28b424126431f7b52f2df69e1e81f11e42832fc7fd223e",
    "simhash": "1:a34367ad3823394c",
    "word_count": 842
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:24.085624+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mr. Justice George Rose Smith dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Little Rock Road Machinery Company v. Frazier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nAs a corporation Little Rock Road Machinery Company entered into an arrangement with Roland G. Frazier to supply a tractor and bulldozer. The writing is captioned, \u2018 \u2018 Equipment Lease Contract\u201d. The lease covered ten months beginning May 15, 1950, at a rental of $800 per month plus [sales] tax, payable in advance. Option was given to renew the lease for one month for $800 and tax. Payment of the first rental in each renewal period \u2018 \u2018 shall be construed as the exercise by the lessee of [his]. option to renew for the entire period\u201d.\nBy \u00a7 6 the lessor agreed to sell such equipment at the end of the lease period for $8,745, and in that event rental payments were to apply on the purchase price.\nThe original contract introduced by appellant contains a clause disclaiming any warranty as to the fitness of the machinery; and upon expiration of ten months or any renewal period the lessee was to deliver the equipment to the Little Rock company\u2019s yard, all freight and delivery charges prepaid. Another condition is that the writing contains the entire contract, and that no agreement or representations by any of the company\u2019s agents or employees should be binding on the lessor, for \u201conly an official of lessor has authority to execute the lease for it\u201d.\nThe appeal is from a defendant\u2019s judgment on a finding by the jury that Frazier did not owe the company $52.02 for parts and supplies, and that rental charges for September, October, and November had not been earned. The last item amounts to $2,448.\nThere was no exercise by Frazier of his option to make the last payment and purchase the machinery. On the contrary, he contended that the contract retained by the company was executed in blank insofar as its application to his specific needs were concerned; that in negotiating with an official of the company the machinery was warranted for 90 days; that he later wrote for a copy of the contract and the copy received (later \u2014 as it was claimed \u2014 lost and therefore not susceptible of introduction) differed materially from the one he signed. During early operational stages it was discovered that the tractor used an inordinate amount of oil, and the \u201ctracks\u201d kept coming off \u2014 \u201cthey gave me a world of trouble\u201d.\nFrazier paid rentals for four months, but claims to have protested repeatedly regarding condition of the machinery. He telephoned to \u201csome one\u201d in the company\u2019s maintenance and repair division and received assurances that the warranty would be fulfilled. E. R. Pils was identified as one of the persons with whom conversations were had. Gordon Wilson, manager and part owner of the machinery company, identified Pils as \u201cour office and credit manager\u201d. Testimony relating to agreements with Pils was given by Viola Lee Frazier, the defendant-appellee\u2019s wife who acted as his agent, and who had written letters for her husband.\nAccording to Frazier\u2019s testimony he finally offered to pay transportation charges on the machinery if the company would send for it and terminate the release and acquit him of liability. A receipt dated Dec. 8, 1950, was shown the witness. By it the company acknowledged payment of $96.90 for \u201cfreight charges on tractor and dozer \u2019 \u2019. The witness would not confirm the date.\nWhen the entire defense is summarized it amounts to this: Frazier insists he made a verbal contract with the company through Gordon Wilson when the machines were shown him on the company\u2019s yard; that his purpose in procuring the equipment was to construct ponds for farmers, and that Wilson fully guaranteed the machinery. In reliance upon these representations he (Frazier) signed some papers in the office, but did not get a copy. Wilson admitted it was not customary to give the lessee a copy of the contract until the machinery was ready for delivery. He insisted, however, that the copy sent Frazier was identical with the original retained and offered as an exhibit. Appellant calls attention to letters admitted by Frazier to have been directed to the company after the so-called 90-day guarantee period had expired, and in which promises of payment were made.\nThe principal ground for reversal urged by appellant is the court\u2019s action in giving Instruction No. 2 telling the jury that if it believed the defendant made a compromise proposal under which he would reimburse the plaintiff for transportation charges incident to a return of the machinery; and if inter-party intentions were to terminate the contract, then the defendant should prevail.\nAppellant earnestly insists that the testimony did not warrant this instruction. A majority of the judges, however, hold the view that there was substantial evidence of accord and satisfaction, hence the instruction was proper. This would, of course, affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.\nMr. Justice George Rose Smith dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moore, Burrow, Ghowning c& Mitchell and Lawrence G. Burrow, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Carroll G. Hollensworth and B. Ball, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Little Rock Road Machinery Company v. Frazier.\n4-9904\n252 S. W. 2d 404\nOpinion delivered November 10, 1952.\nMoore, Burrow, Ghowning c& Mitchell and Lawrence G. Burrow, Jr., for appellant.\nCarroll G. Hollensworth and B. Ball, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0182-01",
  "first_page_order": 206,
  "last_page_order": 208
}