Hubbard v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc.
903 F. Supp. 444, 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 562, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17171 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under UCC § 2-612 for installment contracts, a buyer's rejection of a non-conforming installment is proper if the non-conformity substantially impairs the value of that installment. Where a contract contains highly specific quality standards, failure to meet such a standard constitutes a substantial impairment, and the buyer's rejection is proper if made in good faith, which can be demonstrated by using reasonable and customary industry methods of inspection.
Facts:
- Daniel Hubbard, a potato farmer, and UTZ Quality Foods, a snack food producer, executed a written contract for Hubbard to supply 11,000 hundred-weight of potatoes.
- The UTZ-prepared contract specified that potatoes must produce chips meeting at least a '#2' on the Snack Food Association 'Fry Color Chart,' a critical quality standard for UTZ.
- The 1992 growing season was negatively impacted by cold, rainy weather, which resulted in a generally poor and immature potato crop across New York.
- On September 22, 1992, Hubbard sent a 1,000-pound sample of potatoes, which UTZ rejected after processing due to poor color.
- On October 1, 1992, Hubbard sent a full truckload of potatoes, which UTZ again rejected after its employees determined the resulting chips had an unacceptable '#3' color.
- On October 7, 1992, Hubbard personally delivered another 1,000-pound sample to UTZ's facility, which was also rejected based on a visual inspection by an experienced UTZ supervisor who concluded the color was in the '#3' range.
- UTZ employees used visual inspection to assess chip color, which the court found to be the standard and customary method in the potato chip industry at the time.
- Following the rejections, UTZ's manager informed Hubbard he could send more potatoes for testing, but that Hubbard would have to arrange transportation himself, contrary to past practice. Hubbard sent no further potatoes.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Daniel Hubbard filed a breach-of-contract action against Defendant UTZ Quality Foods, Inc. in the United States District Court.
- Hubbard alleged wrongful rejection of his goods and sought damages for the full contract price.
- UTZ denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim against Hubbard for his alleged breach of contract.
- The case was tried before the Court in a 5-day bench trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under UCC § 2-612 for installment contracts, is a buyer's rejection of potato shipments proper where the potatoes fail to meet a specific, detailed contract standard for color, and the rejection is based on a good-faith visual inspection that is customary in the industry?
Opinions:
Majority - Larimer, District Judge
Yes, the buyer's rejection was proper. Under UCC § 2-612, a buyer may reject an installment if a non-conformity substantially impairs its value. The court reasoned that because the contract contained numerous, highly specific quality standards, especially regarding color, the failure to meet the '#2' color requirement was a substantial impairment, not a trivial defect. The court also found UTZ acted in good faith as required by UCC § 1-203, because its rejection was based on a visual inspection method that was reasonable, customary in the industry, and conducted by experienced personnel. The court was not persuaded that UTZ's motive was to get a lower price, finding instead that its actions were based on legitimate quality concerns.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'substantial impairment' standard under UCC § 2-612 for installment contracts, particularly in manufacturing and agricultural supply contexts. The ruling establishes that when a contract places significant emphasis on specific, detailed quality standards, a failure to meet those standards is likely to be considered a substantial impairment, justifying rejection. It reinforces that a party's adherence to customary industry practices serves as strong evidence of good faith. The case serves as a precedent for disputes where the method of testing product conformity is not specified in the contract, favoring reasonable and standard industry procedures.
Unlock the full brief for Hubbard v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc.