# Bramlett v. Adamson Ford, Inc.

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · December 20, 1996 · 717 So. 2d 772

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938373

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Bramlett, Sr. v. Adamson Ford, Inc., and Ford Motor Credit Company.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 20, 1996
- **Citations:** 717 So. 2d 772; 1996 WL 730853
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Monroe
- **Judges:** Crawley, Monroe, Robertson, Thigpen
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938373

## Opinion text

While I do not believe that Adamson had an obligation to volunteer that it was receiving a commission from Ford Motor Credit Company, I do think that when Bramlett asked Adamson's agent point blank why the rate of financing was so high, the agent had a duty to tell him the truth, i.e., that in addition to Bramlett's poor credit history, FMCC had to pay Adamson a 3% commission and so that pushed the rate up. This is especially true in light of the agent's earlier statement to Bramlett that he would get him the best financing available.
I do not understand the dissents' reluctance to require a person to tell the truth. Judge Thigpen apparently believes that Bramlett's question regarding the high finance rate was not direct enough. I believe that asking why the finance rate is so high adequately covers this situation. Regardless of how many cars Bramlett had purchased in the past, or whether he liked to shop loans, the fact is, he asked Adamson's agent a direct question but was not given an entirely truthful answer.
There is nothing legally or morally wrong with requiring someone to tell the truth. Therefore, I concur with the main opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938373. Public record. Not legal advice.