06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

[T]he plain reading of the statute excludes the finding of any implied warranty<br />

since UCC § 2–314 (1979) applies only to sales made by a “merchant with respect to<br />

goods of that kind.” UCC § 2–104 defines merchant as:<br />

“Merchant” means a person who deals in goods of the kind or<br />

otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or<br />

skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to<br />

whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of<br />

an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds<br />

himself out as having such knowledge or skill.<br />

From the undisputed testimony in the record, it is clear that the defendants, Dayton<br />

Bank & Trust Company and Homer Mayfield, are not merchants within the meaning<br />

of the statute.<br />

______________________<br />

Review Question 1. Courts are not always helpful in articulating their<br />

reasoning, and here the Foley court seemed to think it self-evident why Dayton Bank<br />

& Trust was not a merchant against whom the implied warranty of merchantability<br />

would operate. Why exactly is a bank—generally considered a sophisticated<br />

commercial party—not a “merchant” <strong>for</strong> purposes of this case? Carefully read the<br />

quoted text of the definition of “merchant” in UCC § 2-104(1).<br />

Review Question 2. Burge is annoyingly fond of a sing-song saying that “only<br />

a merchant has the ability to imply the warranty of merchantability.” Is that<br />

statement correct? Read UCC § 2-314 and see if you can explain what quality of goods<br />

are implied when goods are sold by a merchant. Can you see why parties get in legal<br />

battles over whether a seller is or is not a merchant? The Gared Holdings case that<br />

follows may help you answer this question.<br />

______________________<br />

CRONE, J.<br />

GARED HOLDINGS, LLC v. BEST BOLT PRODUCTS, INC.<br />

Court of Appeals of Indiana.<br />

991 N.E.2d 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)<br />

Facts and Procedural History<br />

Best Bolt primarily sells fasteners, such as “bolts, nuts and screws and<br />

miscellaneous hardware items.” Best Bolt is a distributor; it does not manufacture<br />

the products that it sells. Sometime in 2006, Curtis Sparks, a salesman <strong>for</strong> Best Bolt,<br />

noticed that Gared Holdings had playground equipment outside its facility and<br />

thought that Gared could be a potential customer. Sparks stopped in and introduced<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

198 CHAPTER IV: ALTERNATIVE REGIMES

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!