Bowen v. Young
507 S.W.2d 600 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A buyer who performs acts of dominion over goods that are inconsistent with the seller's ownership, such as making alterations and using them for a significant period, legally accepts the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code, even if the buyer had previously made a rightful rejection.
Facts:
- On November 14, 1970, Young agreed to purchase a specific model of a new mobile home from Bowen, paying a $1,000 deposit.
- The sales contract specified a gas heating furnace and a 3.5-ton air conditioner, but also contained an 'as is' clause disclaiming warranties.
- The mobile home was delivered late on January 4, 1971, to a different location than agreed upon, requiring Young to pay for its transport.
- Upon inspection, Young discovered the home had an electric furnace instead of gas and a 3-ton air conditioner instead of the 3.5-ton unit he ordered.
- On January 21, 1971, after his complaints to Bowen and the manufacturer were not addressed, Young sent a telegram to Bowen stating the order was cancelled.
- When Bowen did not return his deposit, Young moved into the mobile home in February 1971 to minimize his living expenses.
- Young then spent approximately $581 to convert the heating system from electric to gas.
- Young lived in the mobile home for over a year before having it moved back to El Paso.
Procedural Posture:
- Young, the buyer, sued Bowen, the seller, in a Texas trial court.
- In a trial without a jury, the court found that Young had rightfully rejected the non-conforming mobile home.
- The trial court awarded Young $2,000 in damages, ruling it was a security interest in the mobile home.
- Bowen, the seller and now Appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
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 act of moving into, altering, and living in a mobile home for over a year after initially sending a notice of rejection constitute an acceptance of the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Osborn
Yes. A buyer's acts that are inconsistent with the seller's ownership constitute an acceptance of the goods, obligating the buyer to pay the contract price. Although Young's initial telegram on January 21 was a rightful and timely rejection under U.C.C. § 2.601 because the mobile home did not conform to the contract, his subsequent actions nullified that rejection. After rejecting goods, a buyer's options are limited by U.C.C. § 2.604 to storing the goods for the seller, reshipping them, or reselling them for the seller's account. Young did none of these; instead, he exercised dominion over the mobile home by making substantial alterations (converting the heater), moving in, and living in it for over a year. These actions are fundamentally inconsistent with the seller's ownership and therefore constitute an acceptance under U.C.C. § 2.606(1)(c). Consequently, Young became obligated to pay the contract price under § 2.607, though he retained the right to sue for damages for breach of warranty.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries between a buyer's rightful rejection and a subsequent acceptance of non-conforming goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. It establishes that a buyer's post-rejection conduct can override the rejection if it amounts to an exercise of ownership. The decision serves as a significant precedent, warning buyers that they cannot simultaneously reject goods and use them for their own substantial benefit. It reinforces the principle that after rejection, the buyer's role is primarily that of a bailee or custodian for the seller, and any action inconsistent with that role risks being construed as an acceptance, thereby obligating the buyer to pay the contract price.
