Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Conditioning, Inc.
76 P.3d 977, 51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 303, 139 Idaho 233 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), when a buyer rightfully rejects goods due to a breach of an express warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the "market price" component of damages under Idaho Code § 28-2-713 refers to the price of goods "of the same kind" as those specified in the contract, not goods of a different, more expensive kind that would have fulfilled the warranty.
Facts:
- From January 1991 to July 1999, Brian and Clarice Keller owned and operated Adcope Athletic Club in leased premises in Lewiston, Idaho.
- In December 1995, the Kellers extensively remodeled the athletic club, replacing an above-ground swimming pool with a below-ground pool.
- After reopening in January 1996, customers began complaining about hot, humid, and odorous air in the pool area.
- In November and December 1996, the Kellers solicited bids from HVAC contractors to remedy the problems, receiving a bid from Inland Metals for a 7.5-ton dehumidifier ($30,081) and bids from another contractor for 10-ton or 12-ton dehumidifiers (over $39,000).
- Mr. Keller expressed concern to Inland Metals' president that their recommended 7.5-ton unit might be too small, prompting a meeting with the dehumidifier manufacturer's representative, Jim Ash, who reassured Mr. Keller about the unit's size.
- Following this meeting, Inland Metals' president sent Mr. Keller a letter on January 28, 1997, expressly warranting that the ducted system would "rid you of the sweating walls ... and eliminate those offensive odors, and overall 'bad air'."
- Based on these representations, Mr. Keller accepted Inland Metals' bid on March 11, 1997, for the 7.5-ton dehumidifier, which Inland Metals installed on June 20, 1997.
- Upon their return on July 2, 1997, the Kellers' employees informed them the dehumidifier was not working well, and despite numerous visits and adjustments by Inland Metals employees, the unit never performed to the Kellers' satisfaction in remedying the humidity and odor.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 30, 1997, Adcope L.L.C. (the Kellers' business) filed an action against Inland Metals in the district court (trial court) seeking to rescind the contract and recover damages.
- Inland Metals counterclaimed to foreclose its mechanic’s lien.
- The district court tried the case and found that Inland Metals had breached express and implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and that the Kellers had timely rejected the dehumidifier.
- The district court awarded the Kellers $13,452.00 in damages plus costs and attorney’s fees totaling $74,400.28 and denied Inland Metals any recovery on its counterclaim.
- Inland Metals timely appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
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 Idaho Code § 28-2-713, which allows a buyer to recover the difference between market price and contract price for rightfully rejected goods, permit calculating market price based on goods of a different, more expensive kind necessary to fulfill a breached warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, or only on goods of the same kind as specified in the original contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Eismann, Justice
No, Idaho Code § 28-2-713 permits calculating market price only on goods of the same kind as specified in the original contract, not on goods of a different, more expensive kind. The Court affirmed the district court's finding that Inland Metals breached an express warranty that the 7.5-ton dehumidifier was fit for the particular purpose of eliminating odor and humidity at the athletic club. This finding was supported by substantial, competent evidence, including a letter from Inland Metals' president and oral assurances made after Mr. Keller expressed concerns about the unit's size. The Court also affirmed the finding that the Kellers rightfully rejected the dehumidifier within a reasonable time, noting that continued use to mitigate damage does not constitute acceptance. However, the Court modified the damages award. It held that the "market price" under Idaho Code § 28-2-713, which applies when a buyer rightfully rejects goods, refers to the price of goods "of the same kind" as those contracted for (in this case, a 7.5-ton dehumidifier). It is not the price of a larger, more expensive unit (like a 10-ton dehumidifier) that would have actually fulfilled the warranty. The Court reasoned that this interpretation aligns with the "cover" remedy (Idaho Code § 28-2-712), which also requires purchasing substitute goods "of the same kind." Since there was no evidence that the market price for a 7.5-ton dehumidifier was higher than the contract price, the Kellers were only entitled to incidental and consequential damages. The damage award for the difference in cost between the 7.5-ton and 10-ton units ($10,659.00) was therefore erroneous and reduced. The award for incidental damages ($2,793.00 for employee time and testing) and the determination of Kellers as the prevailing party for trial costs/attorney fees were affirmed.
Dissenting - Trout, Chief Justice
Yes, Idaho Code § 28-2-713 should permit calculating market price based on goods of a different, more expensive kind when those goods are necessary to fulfill a breached warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Chief Justice Trout dissented from the majority's interpretation of damages, arguing that it misapplies the Uniform Commercial Code. He contended that the primary purpose of UCC buyer's remedies, including § 28-2-713, is to put the aggrieved party "in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed," protecting the buyer's "benefit of the bargain." In this case, the bargain was for a dehumidifier that would solve the humidity and odor problems, not just a 7.5-ton unit specifically. The express warranty concerned the performance of the unit. The dissent argued that if the Kellers had covered, they would have purchased a 10-ton dehumidifier (or similar unit) that would have fulfilled the contract's purpose, not another 7.5-ton unit that they knew was inadequate. Severing the underlying purpose of the contract from the specified size effectively negates the finding of a breach of express warranty. The dissent further pointed out that if the Kellers had accepted the non-conforming goods, they would have been entitled to damages based on the difference between the value of goods accepted and the value they would have had "if they had been as warranted" (I.C. § 28-2-714), which would likely include the cost of a unit that actually performed as promised. It is anomalous to penalize prudent rejection of non-conforming goods by limiting damages more strictly than for accepted non-conforming goods.
Analysis:
This case provides a strict interpretation of "market price" under UCC § 2-713, emphasizing that damages for rightfully rejected goods are limited to goods "of the same kind" as specified in the contract. This interpretation might create a tension where a seller expressly warrants a specific piece of equipment to achieve a particular result, but the equipment itself, though not defective, is simply inadequate for the warranted purpose. Buyers in similar situations may face challenges in recovering the full "benefit of the bargain" if the only way to achieve the warranted result is to purchase a larger or different type of good not explicitly stated in the original contract. It encourages precise contract drafting regarding performance guarantees versus specific product specifications, highlighting the need for buyers to ensure their contracts clearly define the expected performance, not just the physical item.
