Filed 2/26/98

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 27, 1998, be modified as follows:

1. The second sentence of the last paragraph starting on page 28 of the typed opinion, which begins "The evidence Avis proffered . . . " is amended to read as follows: Avis proffered relevant and admissible evidence on this point which, if believed by the jury, would have absolved Avis from any liability.

2. The first sentence of the second paragraph starting on page 35 of the typed opinion, which begins "Enis establishes that . . . " is amended to read as follows: Enis establishes that Avis’ testimony would have been admissible even if this were a "strict compliance" case.

3. The third paragraph starting on page 35 of the typed opinion, which begins "The trial court should have allowed . . . " is deleted and replaced with the following sentence: The trial court should have allowed Avis to call its witnesses concerning the sale to Harvester, and should not have excluded the DMV record of the flatbed conversion under the "strict compliance" rule.

4. After the new sentence set forth in paragraph 3 of this order, a new footnote 9 is added which reads as follows: Whether the DMV document is admissible apart from the "strict compliance" rule is left for the determination of the trial court on remand. (Subsequent footnotes in the typed opinion are renumbered accordingly.)

5. The first sentence of the first paragraph starting on page 36 of the typed opinion, which begins "Exclusion of this evidence . . . " is amended to read as follows: Exclusion of the testimony about the sale was manifestly prejudicial to Avis.

These modifications do not change the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Dated:_____________________

___________________________P.J.