KII-ConditionsAndPromises-PartPerformance-CapitolDodgeSales_v_NorthernConcretePipe

Document Sample
KII-ConditionsAndPromises-PartPerformance-CapitolDodgeSales_v_NorthernConcretePipe Powered By Docstoc
					26c379fd-c705-47d7-9874-9a177e209043.doc

710

Capitol Dodge Sales v. Northern Concrete Pipe, MI court of Appeals, 1983 Did ∆ accept the truck? Issue Reasoning Rule Facts
Northern Concrete’s officer William Washabaugh was interested in a Dodge truck with a snow plow. On a test drive the truck seemed to overheat and the dealer’s representative assured the buyer that it wasn’t any problem with the truck itself but due to incorrect position of the plow. Northern agreed to buy the truck as long as that was the case and Gave a check for full payment Despite a couple visits to the service department, adjusting the snow plow, refilling the radiator, and even replacing the radiator, the truck seemed to overheat every time it was driven. Northern got fed up, told the dealership that they were not buying the truck and put a stop payment on the check and that they should come get it. The truck sat the ∆’s lot and even after notification, ∏ took the purchase and registration documents to the Secretary of State and title was issued in ∆’s name. ∏ would not take the title back and said that he could not resell the truck because ∆ held the title.

Trial court didn’t directly address acceptance but it seems to imply that ∆ accepted the truck. That’s wrong. UCC 2-606 1(a) clearly indicates that acceptance is more than just accepting delivery. It affords the buyer a reasonable opportunity to inspect. Transfer of title may have bearing on determining acceptance but it is not determinative. On question issue (1) – Zabriskie. When buyer can’t know about defects in a complex products, he needs to put the product to its intended use to give him “reasonable opportunity to inspect” to make sure the product performs as intended. Zabriskie was important also because it established that a buyer may reject goods if they don’t conform in any way to K. ∆ had plenty of opportunities to inspect and correct.

UCC 2-606 - 1(a) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods

UCC §2-601 - Perfect tender rule o if the goods or tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the K, o the buyer may a) reject the whole, b) accept the whole, or accept part and reject part

Held Procedure

No acceptance! Reversed. ∆ did not say that it conformed; did not say he will accept anyways; he had absolute right to reject w/in reasonable time. Trial court awarded damages for breach to Capitol (∏). Court found that the ∆ accepted the truck and tried to revoke the sale. The issues addressed by trial court were: 1. ∆ had the burden of proof to show that the truck was defective 2. If truck was defective, was ∏ given the opportunity to fix it 3. Did ∏ have a duty to resell the truck Did not accept the truck!

P argues D argues


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:9
posted:5/16/2009
language:English
pages:1