## Facts

- Steve Tribe bought a horse, “Moccasin Badger,” from Ross and Chrissy Peterson.
- Prior owners described the horse as calm, gentle, and not known to buck; a veterinarian examined the horse before sale and found it sound, kind, gentle, and compliant.
- The Petersons marketed the horse as “extra gentle” and “overly kind,” and suitable for relatively inexperienced riders.
- Tribe and his advisor testified the Petersons verbally guaranteed the horse “had never bucked and would never buck.”
- The Petersons denied giving an open-ended guarantee and testified they only described the horse as gentle and as not having bucked anyone off in their experience.
- On Tribe’s first ride after purchase, the horse bucked and threw him, seriously injuring his wrist.
- Tribe sued for breach of express warranty and negligent misrepresentation regarding the horse’s disposition.
- A jury found for the Petersons on all claims; the trial court denied Tribe’s motions for summary judgment, judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), and a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by denying Tribe’s summary-judgment motion on the express-warranty claim.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying JMOL or a new trial on the express-warranty and negligent-misrepresentation claims.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.
- Summary judgment for Tribe on express warranty was properly denied because material factual disputes existed about what the sellers said and whether any statement was an unequivocal warranty.
- Denial of JMOL/new trial was proper because the jury could reasonably find no express warranty, no breach, and no negligent misrepresentation based on the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- An express warranty requires a positive and unequivocal statement about the goods, relied on by the buyer, and understood as an assertion of fact rather than opinion.
- General descriptive or laudatory language in marketing materials may be treated as non-actionable opinion (“puffing”) rather than a warranty.
- Where testimony conflicts about whether an unequivocal promise was made, the existence and scope of an express warranty are questions for the jury.
- Any warranty about an animal’s disposition is ordinarily construed as relating to its condition at the time of sale, not as an indefinite guarantee of future behavior.
- JMOL and new-trial relief is improper where substantial evidence supports the verdict and reasonable jurors could reach the result.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s rejection of claims that the sellers warranted the horse would never buck or negligently misrepresented its disposition, concluding that disputed evidence about any alleged “no-buck” guarantee and substantial proof of the horse’s gentleness at the time of sale supported the defense verdict.


Tribe v. Peterson, 964 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1998)