Legal Development Updates

Jacob Hartz Seed Company, Inc. v. Simrall and Simrall, a Partnership

The plaintiff, a farmer, brought suit in state court against the defendant commercial seed company seeking to recover damages for the alleged failure of seeds to produce a significant crop yield. Among the several theories advanced in support of the plaintiff's request for damages, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached the implied warranty of merchantability, which provides that goods must be "fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used."

In support of this claim, the plaintiff presented expert testimony that the seeds were infected with the soybean mosaic virus (SMV), which led to decreased crop yields from the purchased seeds. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff, finding that the defendant had breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling seeds that were not disease resistant and would not produce high yields; and such defects existed at the time the seeds left the seed producer's control.

The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the presence of disease in seeds based on the mere visual inspection performed by the plaintiff's experts, without laboratory confirmation. The Mississippi Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding that "ample credible evidence" existed to support the trial court's finding that the seed company had breached its implied warranty of merchantability based on the presence of disease in the seeds and a low crop yield.

The appellate court noted that the plaintiff produced several expert witnesses, including an agronomist and plant pathologist, who opined that the subject seeds were infected with SMV based on specific observed symptoms. The defendant's expert witnesses did not dispute the existence of such symptoms, but disagreed with the plaintiff's experts' conclusion that the seeds are infected with SMV. In support of their argument, the defendant's experts' testified that the only way to confirm a diagnosis of SMV is to perform laboratory testing of the seeds. In addition, defendant's experts testified that deficiencies in the crop other than disease-infection could have attributed to the decreased crop yield.

In rejecting the defendant's argument, the appellate court stated that it would not re-weigh the expert evidence presented at trial unless the testimony given was "so incredible as to be absolutely unworthy of belief." Applying this standard, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the mere fact that the experts disagreed on whether the crops were infected with SMV did not render the testimony of plaintiffs' experts "incredible."