Hartness v. Nuckles

|1⅞1 dissent because the majority’s opinion embodies mistakes of fact and law. The opinion reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of an individual’s constitutional right to contract. Further, it is an advisory opinion — something that this court routinely claims that it does not issue. The majority also misunderstands the circuit court’s finding with regard to Mr. Hartness’s proof of value.

Mr. Nuckles’s defense to Mr. Hartness’s breaeh-of-warranty claims was that Mr. Hartness failed to give him sufficient notice of the defect. While there was'a disagreement at trial as to whether Nuck-les…