## Facts

- Curtis O. Williams bought a 1974 Oldsmobile under a retail installment contract requiring 30 monthly payments of $136.40 beginning December 7, 1976; Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC) held the security interest as assignee.
- Williams failed to make the February 7, 1977 payment on time and did not bring the account current before repossession.
- Around February 11–12, 1977, Williams moved from Houston to Mobile but did not notify FMCC of the address change; FMCC’s attempts to reach him by telephone were unsuccessful because the phone was not in service.
- On March 4, 1977, FMCC reviewed the delinquent account and initiated acceleration and repossession.
- An independent contractor repossessed the vehicle on March 5, 1977.
- On March 4, 1977, Mrs. Williams mailed two money orders: $151.40 (February payment plus late charge) and $136.40 (intended March payment); FMCC’s records showed receipt on March 7, 1977, after repossession.
- Mrs. Williams claimed an FMCC representative told her by telephone that sending two payments plus a $15 late charge would resolve the delinquency and avoid problems; the trial court excluded this testimony.
- The contract contained a non-waiver acceleration clause and a clause requiring any modification to be in writing.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged oral assurance or course of dealing could modify or waive a secured creditor’s contractual right to accelerate and repossess when the contract requires written modifications and states late-payment acceptance is not a waiver.
2. Whether the trial court properly excluded testimony about the alleged oral assurance and directed a verdict for FMCC on wrongful repossession and related claims.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the directed verdict for FMCC.
- The court held the contract’s non-modification and non-waiver terms foreclosed reliance on an inconsistent oral assurance to prevent repossession after default.
- Because the oral-assurance evidence could not legally affect FMCC’s contractual remedies, its exclusion was proper.
- With undisputed default at the time of repossession and no legally sufficient evidence of relinquishment of FMCC’s rights, the case did not present a jury question.

## Legal Principles

- When a security agreement requires modifications to be in writing, an alleged oral agreement inconsistent with the written terms is unenforceable to alter the parties’ rights and duties.
- A non-waiver acceleration clause preserves a creditor’s right to accelerate and repossess upon default despite prior acceptance of late payments or other indulgences.
- If excluded evidence is legally incapable of changing the contractual outcome, exclusion supports (rather than undermines) a directed verdict where default and contractual remedies are otherwise established.

## Conclusion

The court upheld repossession and acceleration based on the borrower’s uncured default, enforcing contractual clauses that barred oral modification and waiver; it therefore affirmed both the exclusion of oral-assurance testimony and the directed verdict for the secured creditor.


Williams v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 435 So. 2d 66 (Ala. 1983)