Jim Lynch Cadillac, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. General Motors Corporation, d/b/a Cadillac Motor Car Division, a corporation doing business in Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Jim Lynch Cadillac, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. General Motors Corporation, d/b/a Cadillac Motor Car Division, a corporation doing business in Missouri, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: 72235 Handdown Date: 04/07/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Maura B. McShane Counsel for Appellant: James C. Bradenburg, Todd M. Boehlje and David O. Kreuter Counsel for Respondent: James E. McDaniel and Margaret M. Mooney Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Jim Lynch Cadillac, Inc. (Lynch) appeals from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of General Motors Corporation (GM). Lynch asserts the court erred in: (1) dismissing Counts III and VI of its first amended petition and in failing to allow it to amend its petition; (2) granting a directed verdict in favor of GM on Counts II and V in that the evidence presented established breach of contract; (3) submitting jury instruction Number 9, GM's affirmative defense; (4) overruling its objection to GM's reference to Jim Lynch's personal worth which was irrelevant; (5) admitting evidence of an application signed by Jim Lynch which was a collateral matter, and cannot be used for impeachment purposes; and (6) limiting testimony of rebuttal witness, Mark Hoffman, Certified Public Accountant (CPA). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties

have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.