PARKER, Justice.

Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC ("APA"), filed a permissive appeal, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P., from an order of the Limestone Circuit Court denying APA's motion for a summary judgment in an action filed by James Wiese, as father of Matthew Hunter Wiese ("Matthew"), a minor, deceased, against APA. We affirm the circuit court's judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Facts and Procedural History

The facts are undisputed. In 2005, APA began operating a public auction in Limestone County. APA auctioned various consumer goods including, but not limited to, go-carts; APA regularly auctioned motorcycles and golf carts, among other recreational vehicles. In fact, the word "Powersport" in APA's name was because "the main things that [APA] sold were four-wheelers, boats, motorcycles, that type of thing." Generally, all the goods APA sold were on consignment to APA from the owners of the goods; the owners of the goods agreed to pay APA a commission of 10% to 15% of the price APA was able to acquire at auction from a purchaser of the goods.

In the summer of 2005, FF Acquisition Corp., d/b/a Flexible Flyer ("FF Acquisition"), consigned several go-carts to APA to sell at auction. Wiese regularly attended auctions conducted by APA and testified during his deposition that APA regularly auctioned go-carts; one of Wiese's coworkers had purchased a go-cart at an APA auction. On August 27, 2005, Wiese attended an auction held by APA and purchased a "Yerf Dog Go-Cart," Model 3206 ("the go-cart"), for his two minor sons. The go-cart was on consignment to APA from FF Acquisition; however, Wiese was not aware that FF Acquisition had manufactured the go-cart.

Soon after purchasing the go-cart, Wiese discovered that the engine would not operate for more than a few minutes at a time. After several failed attempts to repair the go-cart, Wiese stored the go-cart in his garage for almost two years. In September 2007, Wiese repaired the go-cart. On September 17, 2007, Matthew was riding the go-cart and had an accident in which Matthew hit his head on the ground causing a brain injury that resulted in his death on March 6, 2010.

On August 19, 2010, Wiese filed a wrongful-death action against APA. Wiese's complaint contained one count entitled "wrongful death/breach of warranty." Wiese alleged that he brought his claim "pursuant to Alabama's Wrongful Death Act, Alabama Code [1975,] §§ 6-5-391 and 6-5-410 et seq."1 Wiese also alleged that APA "impliedly warranted that said product was fit for its intended use as a recreational `Fun-Kart' off-road vehicle, pursuant to the Code of Alabama, 1975, § 7-2-315; and further impliedly warranted that said product was merchantable pursuant to the Code of Alabama, 1975, § 7-2-314." Further, Wiese alleged that the go-cart "failed, and [APA] breached [its] said implied warranties in that [the go-cart] was not fit for its intended use and/or was not merchantable." APA answered the complaint.

On June 11, 2012, APA filed a motion for a summary judgment. In its summary-judgment motion, APA argued that, under Geohagan v. General Motors Corp., 291 Ala. 167, 279 So.2d 436 (1973), "Wiese cannot maintain an action for wrongful death based on breach of an implied warranty." APA also argued that Wiese could not maintain his claim of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against APA "because [APA] was not a seller or a merchant as required by Alabama's version of the Uniform Commercial Code." Lastly, APA argued that Wiese could not maintain his claim of "breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose" against APA "because [APA] was not a seller, and because Wiese did not rely on [APA's] knowledge or skill when purchasing the go-cart."

On July 31, 2012, Wiese filed a response to APA's summary-judgment motion. Wiese argued that he could base his wrongful-death action on the alleged breach of an implied warranty because, Wiese alleged, Geohagan had been overruled by this Court in Sledge v. IC Corp., 47 So.3d 243 (Ala.2010). In the alternative, Wiese alleged that he had "stated a claim for compensatory damages for breach of warranty to recover for the compensatory damages suffered by the decedent, Matthew Wiese, between the date of his injury and his death, pursuant to Benefield v. Aquaslide `N' Dive Corp., 406 So.2d 873 (Ala.1981)." Wiese also alleged that he could "maintain a claim [of] breach of merchantability because [APA] was a seller with a non-disclosed principal and a merchant with respect to the go-kart." Wiese also agreed that APA's summary-judgment motion was "due to be granted, in part, as to any claims premised on a breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose."

On August 8, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on APA's summary-judgment motion. At the summary-judgment hearing, Wiese requested leave to file an amended complaint, which the circuit court granted. On August 9, 2012, Wiese filed his amended complaint, reasserting his wrongful-death claim based upon APA's alleged "breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under § 7-2-314[, Ala. Code 1975]." Wiese also asserted a claim of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability independent of his wrongful-death claim; Wiese requested compensatory damages for APA's alleged breach.

On September 21, 2012, the circuit court denied APA's summary-judgment motion, stating:

On that same day, the circuit court granted APA permission to appeal the circuit court's denial of APA's summary-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P. Pursuant to Rule 5, APA then filed a petition for permission to appeal with this Court, which this Court granted.

Discussion

In the petition for a permissive appeal, the party seeking to appeal must include a certification by the trial court that the interlocutory order involves a controlling question of law, and the trial court must include in the certification a statement of the controlling question of law. Rule 5(a), Ala. R.App. P. In conducting our de novo review of the question presented on a permissive appeal, "this Court will not expand its review ... beyond the question of law stated by the trial court. Any such expansion would usurp the responsibility entrusted to the trial court by Rule 5(a)." BE & K, Inc. v. Baker, 875 So.2d 1185, 1189 (Ala.2003). Therefore, the only issues before this Court are the controlling questions of law identified by the circuit court in its certification, which are set forth below.

I.

The circuit court certified the first controlling question of law presented by the permissive appeal, as follows:

We answer the second part of this question in the negative: Sledge does not overrule Geohagan and a breach-of-warranty claim cannot be maintained under Alabama's wrongful-death statute. In Geohagan, this Court held that "no contractual cause of action for wrongful death is created by our Uniform Commercial Code arising from a breach of warranty, and that actions for wrongful death can arise in this state and be processed only under our wrongful death acts." 291 Ala. at 172, 279 So.2d at 440. In so reaching this conclusion, this Court explained:

291 Ala. at 171, 279 So.2d at 439.

In Sledge, the case the circuit court incorrectly determined overruled Geohagan, we dismissed the appeal of a personal representative of an estate as being from a nonfinal judgment. The personal representative represented the estate of a minor who had died as the result of injuries she sustained from a vehicular accident that involved a school bus in which she was riding. The personal representative sued numerous parties, including IC Corporation ("IC") and International Truck and Engine Corporation ("ITEC"), the companies responsible for the design, manufacture, and distribution of the school bus. The personal representative's complaint sought damages "under various theories of negligence, breach of warranty, products liability, and violation of the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (`AEMLD'). [The personal representative] specifically sought damages for [the minor's] wrongful death." Sledge, 47 So.3d at 245. IC and ITEC

47 So.3d at 245. The trial court

Id. The personal representative appealed.

As a threshold matter, this Court had to determine whether the trial court's Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., certification was valid. After setting forth pertinent rules of law, this Court held, as follows:

47 So.3d at 247-48 (some footnotes omitted). The only issue decided by this Court in Sledge was that the personal representative's appeal was from a nonfinal judgment.

In the present case, Wiese argues that, in Sledge, "the Alabama Supreme Court held that a wrongful[-]death claim may be maintained based upon a breach of warranty theory, which overruled Geohagan." Wiese's brief, at p. 12. Wiese further argues that

Id. at p. 13.

Wiese — and the circuit court — have misread this Court's holding in Sledge. As set forth above, this Court in Sledge had to address initially whether the trial court had properly certified its partial summary judgment as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). This Court in Sledge determined only that certification of the trial court's partial summary judgment under Rule 54(b) was not available because the trial court had not ruled on the personal representative's wrongful-death claim; it was not necessary for this Court to overrule Geohagan to reach its conclusion. In so holding, this Court merely noted that the personal representative's breach-of-warranty claim was still pending in the trial court. Although this Court relied upon the fact that the Sledge plaintiff's breach-of-warranty claim — along with another of the plaintiff's claims — was still pending, this Court did not hold in Sledge that a breach-of-warranty claim could actually support a wrongful-death claim. The issue whether a contractual cause of action for wrongful death is created by Alabama's version of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") arising from a breach-of-warranty issue was not before the Court in Sledge; the Sledge Court was not asked to overrule Geohagan; and the Sledge Court did not even cite Geohagan.

Based on the foregoing, we answer the circuit court's first controlling question of law in the negative; Geohagan was not overruled by Sledge and a breach-of-warranty claim cannot be maintained under Alabama's wrongful-death statute. APA has demonstrated that the circuit court erred in denying its motion for a summary judgment on this issue. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court's judgment denying APA's summary-judgment motion insofar as the circuit court held that "a breach of warranty claim can be maintained under Alabama's wrongful death statute" and remand the cause to the circuit court. On remand, the circuit court is to dismiss Wiese's wrongful-death claim.

II.

We now turn to the circuit court's second controlling question of law, which the circuit court set forth, as follows:

It is not clear from the wording of the question exactly what controlling question of law the circuit court would have this Court answer; thus, we will reframe the question.4 In reframing the above question, however, we are mindful that this Court is to provide a de novo review of the controlling question of law presented by the circuit court, and, as noted above, "this Court will not expand its review on permissive appeal beyond the question of law stated by the trial court. Any such expansion would usurp the responsibility entrusted to the trial court by Rule 5(a)." Baker, 875 So.2d at 1189. Therefore, in reframing the controlling question of law, we are cautious not to expand our review beyond the question of law stated by the circuit court. With these considerations in mind, we reframe the circuit court's controlling question of law as follows:

We answer this question in the affirmative.

In Ex parte General Motors Corp., 769 So.2d 903, 911-12 (Ala.1999), this Court set forth the following concerning the implied warranty of merchantability:

An implied warranty of merchantability exists only if there is a "seller," as that term is defined in § 7-2-103, Ala.Code 1975, who is a "merchant with respect to goods of that kind." § 7-2-314(1), Ala. Code 1975. Section 7-2-103(1)(d) defines a "seller" as "a person who sells or contracts to sell goods"; § 7-2-104(1), Ala. Code 1975, defines "merchant" as follows:

It is well settled that under Alabama law an auctioneer may be considered a merchant under Alabama's version of the UCC. See Bradford v. Northwest Alabama Livestock Ass'n, 379 So.2d 609, 611 (Ala. Civ.App.1980) (holding that a livestock auctioneer was a merchant because it "was in the business of selling cattle to prospective buyers and had been so engaged for a number of years and held itself out as having the knowledge and skill to conduct such sales"). However, the parties have not directed this Court's attention to any Alabama precedent concerning whether an auctioneer selling goods on behalf of a consignor — and, thus, not holding title to the goods being sold, see Bischoff v. Thomasson, 400 So.2d 359 (Ala.1981)(noting that a consignee does not hold title to the goods consigned to it by a consignor; title passes from the consignor to the buyer) — may be considered a seller under Alabama's version of the UCC and held liable as a merchant-seller for a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability.

This very issue was considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Powers v. Coffeyville Livestock Sales Co., 665 F.2d 311 (10th Cir.1981). In Powers, Jack and Rita Powers, owners of a livestock auction, purchased several hundred head of cattle at a livestock auction conducted by Coffeyville Livestock Sales Co., Inc. ("Coffeyville"). The Powerses then sold some of the cattle at an auction they conducted. The buyer later brought a civil action against the Powerses, alleging that the cattle he had purchased were diseased and dying. The buyer's lawsuit against the Powerses resulted in a $38,360 judgment against the Powerses based upon the breach of an implied warranty of merchantability. The Powerses then sought indemnification from Coffeyville in the federal district court. The federal district court concluded "that Coffeyville never held title to the cattle claimed to be unmerchantable `and consequently cannot be liable as a "seller" under any implied warranty theory.'" 665 F.2d at 312. The Powerses appealed.

The question before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether, under Kansas law, an auctioneer can be held liable as a merchant-seller for purposes of § 84-2-314, Kan. Stat. Ann., which is identical to § 7-2-314, Ala.Code 1975, and which states, in pertinent part:

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Coffeyville was a merchant under § 84-2-104, Kan. Stat. Ann., which is identical to § 7-2-104, Ala.Code 1975, and which states, in pertinent part:

After determining that Coffeyville was a merchant, the Tenth Circuit then stated that "[s]ince only merchants who are `sellers' are liable for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, we must also determine whether Coffeyville is a seller under the Uniform Commercial Code." Section 84-2-103(d), Kan. Stat. Ann., which is identical to § 7-2-103(d), Ala. Code 1975, defines a seller as "a person who sells or contracts to sell goods." In considering whether Coffeyville was a seller, the Tenth Circuit held:

Powers, 665 F.2d at 312-13.6

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that "[t]he record ... suggests that Coffeyville did not disclose the owners' identities to the Powers[es], but the trial court's opinion does not expressly address this issue, nor whether the exceptions to implied warranties in section 84-2-316 apply." 665 F.2d at 313. As a result, the Tenth Circuit reversed the judgment of the federal district court and remanded the case "for a finding by the trial court as to whether Coffeyville disclosed the identity of the owners of the cattle sold to the Powers[es], and for other proceedings consistent with this opinion." 665 F.2d at 313.

In Abercrombie v. Nashville Auto Auction, Inc., 541 So.2d 516 (Ala.1989), as in the cases cited in Powers above, this Court stated that an auctioneer may be liable as a seller under § 7-2-312, Ala.Code 1975, for a breach of the warranty of title if the auctioneer fails to disclose to the buyer the identity of the principal:

Abercrombie, 541 So.2d at 518. In so holding in Abercrombie, this Court relied upon Welch v. Mitchell, 351 So.2d 911, 915 (Ala.Civ.App.1977), in which the Court of Civil Appeals stated that "an auctioneer who acts for a disclosed principal will not be deemed liable for a defect in the title of the property sold."

Therefore, based on the reasoning in Powers and the common-law principles of agency set forth by this Court in Abercrombie, we hold that an auctioneer may be held liable as a merchant-seller for the implied warranty of merchantability under § 7-2-314 if the auctioneer fails to disclose the principal for whom the auctioneer is selling the goods.

We note that the rule set forth in Welch and applied in Abercrombie is related to the application of the warranty of title set forth in § 7-2-312, Ala.Code 1975, which states:

(Emphasis added.) By holding in Abercrombie that an auctioneer may be liable as a seller for the warranty of title if the auctioneer fails to disclose the principal, this Court held that an auctioneer may be liable as a seller under § 7-2-312. In a general sense, the question before the Court in Abercrombie was essentially the same question before this Court: Can an auctioneer be held liable as a seller under Alabama's version of the UCC? We answered that question in the affirmative in Abercrombie concerning the warranty of title, and we do so in this case concerning the implied warranty of merchantability.

APA does not argue that Powers is not analogous to this case; instead, APA argues that it is not necessary for this Court to consider principles of common law, as allowed under § 7-1-103, Ala.Code 1975, set forth supra in note 5, because, APA argues, the definition of "seller" in § 7-2-103(d), Ala.Code 1975, is clear. However, consistent with § 7-1-103, we have considered "the principles of law and equity, including ... the law relative to ... principal and agent ... [to] supplement" the provisions of Alabama's version of the UCC.

In summary, based on the common-law principles of agency set forth in Abercrombie, an auctioneer selling consigned goods on behalf of an undisclosed principal may be held liable as a merchant-seller for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under § 7-2-314, Ala.Code 1975. As a result, we answer the circuit court's second controlling question of law in the affirmative, and we affirm the circuit court's judgment denying APA's summary-judgment motion as to Wiese's breach-of-the-implied-warranty-of-merchantability claim.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's judgment in part, reverse the circuit court's judgment in part, and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.7

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

MURDOCK, MAIN, and WISE, JJ., concur.

SHAW, J., concurs in the result.

MOORE, C.J., and STUART, BOLIN, and BRYAN, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

MOORE, Chief Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the answer to the first controlling question of law presented by the trial court on permissive appeal, but I dissent from the answer to the second question.

In its second controlling question of law, the trial court asked this Court "whether [James Wiese's] breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim ... cannot be maintained against [Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC (`APA'),] because [APA] was not a seller or merchant as required by Alabama's version of the Uniform Commercial Code." (Emphasis added.) This Court reworded that question as follows: "Whether an auctioneer selling consigned goods on behalf of a seller may be held liable under Alabama's version of the Uniform Commercial Code as a merchant-seller for a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability." 143 So.3d at 720 (emphasis added).

I do not believe that APA is a seller under Alabama's version of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"). A seller is defined as "a person who sells or contracts to sell goods." § 7-2-103(1)(d), Ala.Code 1975. Black's Law Dictionary defines "sell" as "[t]o transfer (property) by sale." Black's Law Dictionary 1482 (9th ed. 2009). "A `sale' consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price...." § 7-2-106(1), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added). This Court has held that a consignee does not hold title to the goods consigned to it by a consignor but that title passes from the consignor to the buyer. Bischoff v. Thomasson, 400 So.2d 359, 365 (Ala.1981).8

In this case, FF Acquisition Corp. ("FFA"), consigned its goods to APA, which served as the auctioneer. Because APA was the consignee, and because a consignee does not hold title to the goods consigned to it by the consignor, then APA could not pass title to Wiese. Because a seller has to pass title under Alabama's version of the UCC, and because APA did not pass title to Wiese, APA cannot be considered a "seller" under Alabama's version of the UCC and therefore cannot be liable for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability under § 7-2-314, Ala. Code 1975.

The main opinion decides the case based on the common law of agency, which, "[u]nless displaced by the particular provisions of [Alabama's version of the UCC]... supplement[s] its provisions." § 7-1-103(b), Ala.Code 1975. However, because § 7-2-103 defines "seller" in a way that excludes APA, the common law cannot supplement § 7-2-103 in this case. Therefore, although I concur in the answer to the first controlling question of law, I dissent from the answer to the second question.

BOLIN, J., concurs.

STUART, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the answer to the first controlling question of law posed by the circuit court in this permissive appeal; I dissent from the answer to the second question.

BRYAN, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the answer to the first controlling question of law presented by the trial court, but I dissent from the answer to the second question.