Fitl v. Strek
690 N.W.2d 605, 55 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 682, 269 Neb. 51 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a), what constitutes a 'reasonable time' for a buyer to notify a seller of a breach depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of the case. A delay in notification may be reasonable if the defect is latent, the buyer justifiably relied on the seller's representations, and the seller is not prejudiced by the delay.
Facts:
- In September 1995, James G. Fitl purchased a 1952 Mickey Mantle Topps baseball card for $17,750 from Mark Strek, a sports card dealer.
- Strek represented that the card was in near mint condition.
- Immediately after the purchase, Fitl placed the card in a safe-deposit box.
- In May 1997, Fitl removed the card from storage and sent it to Professional Sports Authenticators (PSA) for grading.
- PSA reported to Fitl that the card had been doctored and discolored, rendering it ungradable and essentially worthless.
- Fitl then sent the card to a second grading service, ASA Accugrade, Inc., which confirmed that the card had been refinished and trimmed.
- On May 29, 1997, Fitl notified Strek of the defect and his intent to seek a remedy.
- Strek responded that a typical grace period for returning a card was 7 days to 1 month and that Fitl's notice was untimely.
Procedural Posture:
- James G. Fitl filed a lawsuit against Mark Strek in the Nebraska district court (trial court).
- The case was decided in a bench trial, where a judge acted as the fact-finder.
- The district court entered a judgment in favor of Fitl for $17,750 plus costs.
- Strek, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
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 two-year delay in notifying a seller of a defect in goods constitute notification 'within a reasonable time' under U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a) when the defect is not easily discoverable and the buyer relied on the seller's expertise?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, J.
Yes. The two-year delay in notification was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. The requirement that a buyer notify a seller of a breach within a 'reasonable time' is flexible and depends on the specific facts. Here, the defect was not discoverable by a layperson and required expert analysis. Fitl was justified in relying on Strek's representations as an expert dealer and was not required to immediately seek authentication. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the delay prejudiced Strek; an earlier notification would not have allowed Strek to 'cure' the defect, as the card was worthless, nor would it have meaningfully changed his ability to prepare for litigation. The policies underlying the notice requirement—to allow the seller to cure, prepare for a lawsuit, and avoid stale claims—were not undermined by the two-year delay in this context.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the U.C.C.'s 'reasonable time' for notification standard in the context of goods with latent defects, particularly in specialized markets like collectibles. It establishes that the clock for when a buyer 'should have discovered' a defect does not necessarily start at the moment of purchase, especially when a buyer justifiably relies on the seller's expertise. The ruling places a greater burden on expert sellers who make representations of authenticity, as it protects buyers who may not discover a hidden flaw for a significant period. This case serves as a precedent for excusing delays in notification where the defect is not discoverable by a casual inspection and the seller cannot demonstrate actual prejudice from the delay.
