{
  "id": 1888389,
  "name": "Barbara EASOM v. CAVENAUGH FORD COMPANY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Easom v. Cavenaugh Ford Co.",
  "decision_date": "1989-07-03",
  "docket_number": "89-39",
  "first_page": "325",
  "last_page": "327",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "299 Ark. 325"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "771 S.W.2d 778"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "299 Ark. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888425
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/299/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "766 S.W.2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        11332892
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/766/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889833
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0195-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 4160,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.884,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06919631221743043
    },
    "sha256": "4f3859f2e82727c01767161bf9108850eb077e4502c86835f6b4b19447a0450b",
    "simhash": "1:73eac1dba9ea1cd9",
    "word_count": 731
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:40.326030+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Barbara EASOM v. CAVENAUGH FORD COMPANY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe appellant, Barbara Easom, sued the appellee for fraud and breach of warranty. After a pretrial hearing, the trial court dismissed the fraud claim. A directed verdict was granted on the breach of warranty action. Mrs. Easom filed a motion for a new trial, and the trial judge entered an order denying that motion. We reverse and remand.\nMrs. Easom is a 31 year old widow with a seventh grade education. In December of 1987, she bought a 1988 pickup from the appellee, Cavenaugh Ford. The truck had 288 miles on it and was sold \u201cas is\u201d and \u201cwith all faults.\u201d According to the buyer order, the truck had had \u201csome metal and paint work done on it.\u201d The dealer warranty disclaimer purportedly disclaimed all warranties, either expressed or implied.\nWhen Mrs. Easom visited the appellee\u2019s place of business, she looked at three trucks on the lot and filled out a credit application. After her credit was approved, she visited the lot again and discovered the salesman had already begun to fill out the paper work on the truck in question, even though she had not yet expressed interest in any one truck. She testified that the salesman told her, \u201cI don\u2019t have to tell you this but [the truck has] had some minor paint and metal work done on it.\u201d He informed her it had probably been damaged during unloading. Mrs. Easom purchased the truck, but tried to return it a week later when the paint began to come off. Cavenaugh refused to take the truck back.\nShortly thereafter, the truck was involved in a minor accident. In the course of having it repaired, it was discovered that extensive rebuilding had been done on the truck. Mrs. Easom again tried to return the truck to Cavenaugh and, again, her offer was refused. She then filed her lawsuit for fraud and breach of warranty.\nCavenaugh filed a motion in limine claiming the appellant should be prohibited from mentioning the condition of the frame and body of the truck without first establishing that Cavenaugh knew of the condition at the time the truck was sold to the appellant. In essence, this motion challenged the appellant\u2019s ability to prove her claim for fraud.\nAt a hearing on the motion, the appellant called Harry McCord, a body repairman and used car dealer who sold the truck to Cavenaugh. McCord testified that, before he sold the car to Cavenaugh, he had put a front fender on it, replaced the core support for the radiator, the bed of the truck, the hood, and the grill, and straightened the frame. He also testified that he told Mr. Cavenaugh the truck had minor frame damage and that he had replaced the bed and the parts on the front of the truck.\nThe trial court granted the motion in limine, telling the appellant \u201cyou can\u2019t go on fraud,\u201d essentially preventing her from proceeding on her fraud claim. This was error. Two of the five basic elements of a cause of action for fraud are (1) a false, material statement (ordinarily of fact) by the defendant, and (2) scienter \u2014 knowledge by the defendant that the representation is false, or an assertion of fact which he does not know to be true. Delta School of Commerce v. Wood, 298 Ark. 195, 766 S.W.2d 724 (1989). In this case, the appellant provided evidence from which a jury could find that she had been defrauded: a false statement by the salesman that the truck had had \u201cminor\u201d paint and metal work, and, according to Mr. McCord\u2019s testimony, knowledge by Cavenaugh of the extensive work done on the truck. See O\u2019Neal Ford, Inc. v. Davie, 299 Ark. 45, 770 S.W.2d 656 (1989). An issue of fact existed which should have precluded the summary dismissal of the fraud action.\nWe find a new trial should have been granted on the fraud claim.\nReversed and' remanded.\nAlthough the judge heard testimony of a witness, his decision to dismiss the appellant\u2019s fraud claim was akin to a grant of a summary judgment. In effect, he found there was no genuine issue of fact on whether the appellee knew of the condition of the truck.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Larry J. Steele, for appellant.",
      "Bill W. Bristow, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Barbara EASOM v. CAVENAUGH FORD COMPANY, INC.\n89-39\n771 S.W.2d 778\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 3, 1989\nLarry J. Steele, for appellant.\nBill W. Bristow, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0325-01",
  "first_page_order": 351,
  "last_page_order": 353
}