International Harvester Company v. Glendenning
505 S.W.2d 320 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A buyer who knowingly participates in a fraudulent transaction by falsifying documents and making misrepresentations to the secured party does not act with 'honesty in fact' and therefore cannot qualify as a 'buyer in ordinary course of business' entitled to take goods free of a perfected security interest.
Facts:
- International Harvester Company held a perfected security interest in three new tractors as part of a 'floor-planning' arrangement with its dealer, Jack L. Barnes.
- Don Glendenning, an experienced tractor trader familiar with floor-planning arrangements, offered to buy the three tractors from Barnes for $16,000 cash.
- Barnes accepted the offer, which was significantly below the tractors' reasonable market value of approximately $22,500.
- To document the sale, Barnes and Glendenning signed a 'Retail Order Form' that falsely stated the total purchase price was $24,700, paid with $16,000 in cash and a trade-in of four used tractors valued at $8,700.
- Glendenning knew that he was not trading in any tractors and that the information on the form was false.
- When a representative from International contacted Glendenning about the transaction, Glendenning falsely stated that he had traded in four tractors as part of the purchase.
- Glendenning subsequently moved the new tractors to Louisiana and sold them.
Procedural Posture:
- International Harvester Company and International Harvester Credit Corporation sued Don Glendenning in a Texas trial court for wrongful conversion, conspiracy, and fraud.
- Glendenning answered with a special defense, claiming he was a 'buyer in the ordinary course of business.'
- Glendenning invoked a Texas rule of procedure, admitting International's right to recover unless he could successfully prove his affirmative defense.
- The case was tried before a jury on the single issue of whether Glendenning was a buyer in the ordinary course of business.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Glendenning, answering 'Yes' to the special issue.
- International had moved for an instructed verdict before the case went to the jury and moved for a judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) after the verdict, both of which were overruled by the trial court.
- The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against International.
- International (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
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 who pays a price substantially below market value, knowingly signs a falsified retail order form showing non-existent trade-ins, and subsequently lies to the secured party about the transaction's terms qualify as a 'buyer in ordinary course of business' under the Texas Business & Commerce Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Claude Williams
No. A buyer who knowingly engages in deceitful conduct does not qualify as a 'buyer in ordinary course of business.' The Texas Business & Commerce Code defines a buyer in ordinary course as one who acts in 'good faith,' which means 'honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.' Here, Glendenning's own testimony negated his claim of good faith. Despite his conclusory statement that he acted in good faith, his admissions proved otherwise: he was an experienced dealer who knew about floor-planning, bought the tractors for well below market value, knowingly signed a falsified document showing non-existent trade-ins, and admitted this was dishonest and would mislead creditors. He then lied to International's representative about the fake trade-ins. This conduct constitutes a 'definite pattern of lies, deceit, dishonesty and bad faith.' Therefore, there is no evidence of probative force to support the jury's finding, and as a matter of law, Glendenning was not a buyer in the ordinary course of business.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'good faith' requirement for a buyer in the ordinary course of business under the Uniform Commercial Code. The court establishes that 'good faith' is not merely a subjective standard but requires an objective assessment of the buyer's 'honesty in fact.' The decision demonstrates that a party's own testimony admitting to deceit can be sufficient to negate a good faith defense as a matter of law, even in the face of a contrary jury verdict. This strengthens protections for secured lenders against collusive and fraudulent sales by their dealers, ensuring that the 'buyer in ordinary course' status is reserved for genuinely innocent purchasers.
Unlock the full brief for International Harvester Company v. Glendenning