Panike & Sons Farms, Inc. v. Smith
212 P.3d 992 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a buyer may rightfully reject goods that fail to conform to the contract in any respect, including when the goods are not sourced from a specific location designated by the buyer pursuant to an express contractual term as interpreted by the established usage of trade.
Facts:
- In January 2006, Panike & Sons Farms, Inc. (Panike), an onion grower, entered into a contract to sell 25,000 hundredweight (cwt) of onions to Four Rivers Packing Co. (Four Rivers).
- The contract specified the onions must meet a "75% three-inch minimum" requirement and contained a clause stating, "Buyer will specify field(s)."
- In mid-August 2006, Randy Smith of Four Rivers informed Greg Panike of Panike Farms that Four Rivers would be designating the specific fields from which the onions were to be delivered.
- Mr. Panike immediately told Mr. Smith that he would not deliver onions from those designated fields.
- On August 25, 2006, Four Rivers sent a formal letter to Panike, with an attached map, officially designating the fields for delivery.
- On October 3, 2006, Panike attempted to deliver two truckloads of onions to Four Rivers.
- When asked, Mr. Panike admitted that the onions were not from the fields Four Rivers had specified.
- Upon learning this, Four Rivers rejected the delivery.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 28, 2006, Four Rivers Packing Co. filed a lien on the crops of Panike & Sons Farms, Inc.
- On November 22, 2006, Panike sued Four Rivers in the district court (trial court).
- The parties stipulated to waive a jury trial and proceeded with a bench trial before the court.
- The district court entered judgment in favor of Four Rivers, finding that Panike breached the contract and awarding damages of $311,250.00 plus attorney fees and costs.
- Panike (Appellant) filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho, challenging the district court's judgment.
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 seller's delivery of goods from a source other than the specific one designated by the buyer, pursuant to a contractual clause and industry custom, constitute a delivery of non-conforming goods that the buyer may rightfully reject under the Uniform Commercial Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Burdick, Justice
Yes. A seller's delivery of goods from a source other than the one specified by the buyer constitutes a delivery of non-conforming goods that the buyer may rightfully reject. The contract's plain language explicitly granted Four Rivers the right to specify the fields. To determine the timing of this designation, the court considered the 'usage of trade' under Idaho's UCC, finding through testimony that designating fields during the growing season is a normal and expected practice in the onion industry. Therefore, Panike's refusal to deliver from the designated fields was a breach. Under the UCC's perfect tender rule (I.C. § 28-2-601), if goods 'fail in any respect to conform to the contract,' the buyer has the right to reject them. Because the onions Panike tendered were not from the contractually specified source, they were non-conforming goods, and Four Rivers' rejection was proper.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strength of the UCC's 'perfect tender rule,' clarifying that contractual conformity extends beyond the quality or quantity of goods to include specific terms of performance, such as the source of the goods. The case significantly highlights the power of 'usage of trade' to supplement and inform the meaning of contractual terms, particularly when a contract is silent on a matter like timing. It establishes that a party's subjective understanding of a contract term is subordinate to the term's plain language as interpreted through objective, established industry customs. This precedent instructs future litigants and contracting parties that all explicit terms will be strictly enforced, and deviation from industry norms must be expressly stated in the agreement to be effective.
