Borges v. Magic Valley Foods, Inc.
29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1282, 616 P.2d 273, 101 Idaho 494 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a buyer's processing of non-conforming goods into a new product for their own business, after notifying the seller of the non-conformity but without clear instructions or reasonable efforts to resell the goods in their original state, constitutes an act inconsistent with the seller's ownership and thus an acceptance of the goods.
Facts:
- Borges and G&B Land and Cattle Company (respondents) grew approximately 45,000 c.w.t. of potatoes.
- Magic West (appellant) inspected these potatoes, observed a “hollow heart” defect, and contracted to purchase them for $3.80 per c.w.t.
- The contract stipulated that it would become null and void if internal problems developed making the potatoes unfit for fresh pack shipping, and state inspection for grade conformity was to occur at Magic West’s processing plant.
- After Magic West transported the potatoes, over 30,000 c.w.t. were successfully processed and shipped under the fresh pack grade.
- In March 1976, State inspectors declared the remaining 4,838.77 c.w.t. of potatoes unfit for the fresh pack grade due to an increased incidence of hollow heart condition.
- Following this, on March 31, 1976, the parties met, and Magic West proposed blending the defective potatoes with higher-grade ones in an attempt to meet fresh pack standards, but no agreement on a new price for these specific potatoes was reached.
- Without notifying Borges or G&B Land and Cattle Company, Magic West processed the remaining 4,838.77 c.w.t. of potatoes into flakes and subsequently sold them for $1.25 per c.w.t.
- Evidence in the record disclosed that the remaining potatoes could not have been removed from Magic West’s processing plant without destroying at least one-third of them.
Procedural Posture:
- Borges and G&B Land and Cattle Company (plaintiffs) initiated an action against Magic West (defendant).
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $12,832.00.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict and additionally awarded the plaintiffs $6,975.00 for attorney fees and costs.
- Magic West, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Idaho Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a buyer's unauthorized processing of non-conforming goods into a new product for resale, after attempting rejection but without clear instructions from the seller or evidence of attempting to resell in their original form, constitute an acceptance of the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code, making the buyer liable for the contract price?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, Justice
Yes, a buyer's processing of non-conforming goods into a new product for resale, without clear authorization or a reasonable attempt to resell in their original form, can constitute an acceptance inconsistent with the seller's ownership, thereby making the buyer liable for the original contract price. The court held that the dispute was governed by the Idaho Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). While Magic West had the right to reject the non-conforming potatoes, their subsequent actions were inconsistent with that rejection. Magic West contended their actions were a permissible resale under I.C. § 28-2-603(1) (duty of merchant buyer to resell perishables) or I.C. § 28-2-604 (buyer's option to resell if seller gives no instructions). However, the jury could reasonably have found that the respondents' instructions were only to attempt blending, not to process the potatoes into flakes. Moreover, Magic West’s processing of the potatoes into flakes and subsequent sale constituted using the goods in the ordinary course of its own business, which is an act inconsistent with the sellers' ownership under I.C. § 28-2-606(1)(c). The court noted a lack of evidence that Magic West attempted to resell the potatoes in their bins to an independent third party or establish the highest obtainable value for them in that form. Therefore, the jury's finding that Magic West accepted the potatoes and was liable for the full contract price was supported by substantial, albeit conflicting, evidence.
Analysis:
This case highlights the critical distinction under the UCC between a buyer's right to reject non-conforming goods and the actions that constitute acceptance, particularly when a buyer processes or uses the goods. It emphasizes that a buyer's use of goods for its own profit, rather than following a proper resale procedure for the seller's account, can negate an attempted rejection. The decision reinforces the buyer's obligation to act in a manner consistent with the seller's ownership if they intend to reject goods, and underscores the risks associated with unilateral actions regarding rejected or non-conforming goods without explicit seller instructions or a documented effort to mitigate damages in the seller's interest.
