Bull Motor Co. v. Murphy

Jason Murphy (plaintiff) purchased a new truck for $33,495 from Bull Motor Company (BMC) (defendant). Unbeknownst to Murphy or the sales agent, Bo Henderson, the truck had been stolen from BMC’s lot and driven 40 miles before being recovered by the police after 90 minutes. Murphy wanted to have a new truck because he needed dependable transportation to work. It bothered Murphy once he learned that the truck had been stolen, and he thought a stolen vehicle was used, not new. At 18,000 miles, Murphy had to replace the rear end, but he did not know whether it was theft related. With 1,000 miles on the truck, Murphy asked BMC for a new vehicle. BMC declined, offering instead to extend Murphy’s warranty. Tony Bull, BMC’s owner, and James Smith, BMC’s service manager, testified that, post-recovery, the truck was thoroughly inspected and tested, except the rear differential, which was not specifically tested. Bull considered the truck new because in accordance with Arkansas regulations defining new and used vehicles in the context of motor vehicle dealership licensing, the truck had never been registered. Henderson believed the theft would devalue the vehicle $1,000–$1,500. Dean Sides, a local car dealer, testified a stolen vehicle might have less value, but that a not-previously-titled vehicle was new. BMC moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. The jury was given the task of determining what the parties meant by the ambiguous term “new vehicle,” and were given the statutory definitions. A jury awarded Murphy $7,000 in damages. BMC appealed.