{
  "id": 8723432,
  "name": "B-W Acceptance Corp. v. Norman Polk, dba Norm's Furniture City",
  "name_abbreviation": "B-W Acceptance Corp. v. Polk",
  "decision_date": "1967-04-24",
  "docket_number": "5-4166",
  "first_page": "749",
  "last_page": "750",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "242 Ark. 749"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "414 S.W.2d 849"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 S. W. 833",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Ark. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1345625
      ],
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/106/0400-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 2545,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2085586843093941
    },
    "sha256": "52dbb12394620dc8a12ddf7d700a7b98a302de1bf85db080ae093aabab187a91",
    "simhash": "1:4fc49b24842aa45f",
    "word_count": 427
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:12.038660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B-W Acceptance Corp. v. Norman Polk, dba Norm\u2019s Furniture City"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lyle Brown, Justice.\nOn rehearing, B-WAC' urges that the three trust receipts 7, 12, and 13 were in default at the time this action was filed. That fact, so it is argued, would as a matter of law, give B-WAC right of possession \u201cas of the commencement of the action.\u201d It is true they had matured.\nNorm Polk contended that with reference to matured trust receipts there was a procedure consistently followed between the parties and explained in this manner : Upon maturity of any trust receipt, B-WAC would send him \u2014 not a demand for payment \u2014 but a notice. B-WAC\u2019s field representative who serviced Norm\u2019s would receive a copy- The affected distributor would also receive a copy of the notice and the distributor would, without notice to Norm\u2019s, pay to B-WAC' a ninety day renewal charge. The representative would call on Norm Polk regularly during the first half of each month, at which time the matured accounts would be settled. Norm Polk testified that he received no notices of maturity with respect to the last due-dates of the three receipts. Appellant\u2019s credit manager and its field representative corroborated Polk\u2019s testimony in a number of respects. The credit manager also testified that the primary reason for filing the lawsuit was because \u201cwe were not allowed to check the floor plan.\u201d\nAppellant asserts that evidence of this course of dealing was inadmissible because it was at variance with the terms of the contract. The appellant\u2019s position is that non-payment of the trust receipts at maturity caused appellee to be in \u201cdefault\u201d at the time suit was filed, which in turn entitled appellant to repossess the entire floor plan. The evidence of custom operated to explain the ambiguous term \u201cdefault\u201d and not to vary the dates at which the trust receipts matured. Where terms in a contract are ambiguous, or are used in a sense other than the ordinary meaning of the words, oral testimony is admissible to explain the meaning of the words used. Paepcke-Leicht Lbr. Co. v. Talley, 106 Ark. 400, 153 S. W. 833 (1913); Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-1-205 (Add. 1961). This evidence would justify a jury in concluding that appellee was not in \u201cdefault\u201d at the time a particular trust receipt matured, but rather that further steps were to be taken by both parties before this portion of the contract became operative.\nRehearing denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lyle Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B-W Acceptance Corp. v. Norman Polk, dba Norm\u2019s Furniture City\n5-4166\n414 S. W. 2d 849\nOriginal Opinion delivered April 24, 1967, p'. 422.\n[Supplemental Opinion delivered May 29, 1967, rehearing denied.]"
  },
  "file_name": "0749-01",
  "first_page_order": 771,
  "last_page_order": 772
}