Summary Calendar MELVIN PURVIS; SUE PURVIS v. Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 00-31422
Summary Calendar
________________________
MELVIN PURVIS; SUE PURVIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
HELENA CHEMICAL CO.; ET AL.
Defendant,
STONEVILLE PEDIGREED SEED CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.
* * * * * * * * *
MARK DAVIS, doing business as Davis Farms Partnership;
TIM DAVIS, doing business as Davis Farms Partnership
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STONEVILLE PEDIGREED SEED CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
Lower Court No. 99-CV-220
_________________________________________________________________
July 18, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
PER CURIAM:*
The Plaintiffs-Appellants in these consolidated diversity
cases claim that the cotton seed they were sold by Stoneville
Pedigreed Seed Co. (“Stoneville”) contained a serious defect,
specifically its susceptibility to a little-understood natural
condition known as “bronze wilt.” Appellants contend that as the
manufacturer of these seeds, Stoneville is liable for any
“redhibitory defects” in its products. See La. Civ. Code Art.
2520 et seq. Appellants sought recovery from Stoneville for the
damages their cotton crops sustained due to bronze wilt.
Having reviewed the briefs, district court opinion and
pertinent portions of the record, we find no errors of fact or law
warranting reversal. We therefore affirm Chief Judge Little’s
carefully reasoned opinion. We agree with Judge Little that
although Stoneville was the seed’s manufacturer, the natural
susceptibility of cotton seed to an organic condition of uncertain
origin is not a defect within the meaning of Louisiana law. Thus,
with no defects present in the manufactured product, Stoneville is
not liable under the theory of redhibition.
Alternatively, even if the seeds did contain defects,
Stoneville has effectively disclaimed all warranties. This court

-- 2 of 3 --

3
has held that a manufacturer may limit the implied warranty against
redhibitory defects, so long as the limited-warranty sales were to
“commercially sophisticated parties.” See Datamatic v. Int’l Bus.
Mach. Corp., 795 F.2d 458 (5th Cir. 1986). Because a commercial
farmer is a sophisticated buyer of seeds, Stoneville’s disclaimer
of warranties is valid.
For the forgoing reasons, the opinion of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --