BEAUMONT – A swap for a classic car that apparently went south didn’t receive any help from the Ninth Court of Appeals, as justices found the plaintiff’s testimony on the worth of the vehicle was insufficient to prove his claim.
This appeal stems from a dispute between Travis Spaulding and Troy Sumrall. Sumrall sued Spaulding after accepting his 1974 Corvette Stingray as partial payment for Sumrall’s 25-foot power catamaran.
Sumrall alleged that Spaulding falsely represented the quality of the car, and he sought damages equaling the difference between what Sumrall thought the car was worth and what he resold it for.
In the suit, Sumrall claimed that the Stingray had been represented as having all original equipment, including a 454-cubic-inch engine, when the car had been modified with an aftermarket 454-cubic-inch engine that replaced the car’s original 350-cubic-inch engine.
When the case went to trial, the trial court employed a benefit-of-the-bargain measure of damages when awarding damages, and based its award on Sumrall’s testimony about what a car like the one he believed he acquired in the trade should have been worth.
Spaulding appealed and justices were tasked to determine whether lay testimony about the value of a classic car offers any probative value to prove what a car like the one Sumrall claimed he had acquired in the trade should have been worth.
“We conclude the testimony before the trial court regarding the value of the classic car was incompetent to prove the car’s market value on the date the trade occurred,” states the Ninth Court’s May 24 opinion. “Because the plaintiff’s lay opinion about the car’s value was the only evidence admitted in the trial regarding the car’s value, we conclude the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to establish that he suffered any damages due to the trade he agreed to make to acquire the classic car.
“Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render a take-nothing judgment in the defendant’s favor.”
Spaulding is represented by Tony Schaffer of the Austin firm Shaffer & Choate.
Sumrall is represented by Nederland attorney James Wimberley.
Appeals case No. 09-16-00153-CV
Filed in County Court at Law No. 1 of Jefferson County.