{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Brief Martin v. Melland's INC.

Brief Martin v. Melland's INC. - ownership pursuant to...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cameron Hartman 11/24/09 Seat #59 MARTIN v. MELLAND’S INC. Facts: The plaintiff, Martin, entered into a written agreement with the defendant, Melland’s INC. (Mellands) to purchase a truck and haystack mover for $35,389. Martin negotiated a trade-in allowance which lowered the balance to $18,720. This agreement required Martin to “mail or bring title” to Melland “this week.” The new unit wasn’t going to be ready for months, but Martin mailed the title to Melland, but was could retain the use of the old unit “until they had the new one ready.” Fire then destroyed the truck and hay moving unit while Martin was moving hay. Martin demanded a new unit from Melland, so Martin sued. History: The district court ruled in favor of the defendant, Melland’s INC. on grounds of
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ownership pursuant to Section 2-401 UCC. Issue: Does Martin have to bear the loss of the truck and haystack mover? Decision: Yes, the district court’s decision was affirmed, but the reasoning was different. Reason: The risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods only if the seller is a merchant. Since Martin admits that he is not a merchant, he must tender delivery of the unit to Mellands. The trade in unit was not tendered because the agreement stated that Martin would keep the old unit “until they had to new one ready.” Since the “new one” burned to the ground, Martin did not tender delivery to fulfill code section 2-509 of the UCC. As a result, Martin must bear the loss....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online