Scheirman v. Coulter
624 P.2d 70 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seller's affirmation of the value of goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation is considered "puffing" and does not create an express warranty. Furthermore, a specific statute prohibiting the collection of attorney's fees in certain consumer credit sales will control over a general statute that otherwise permits them.
Facts:
- Paula Theobold Coulter, a marketing and economics major, was interested in Aristo Craft cookware she had seen demonstrated in college.
- After graduating, Coulter contacted Donald L. Scheirman, a distributor for the cookware.
- Scheirman told Coulter that the cookware could only be purchased from a distributor, was not available in retail stores, and would never be sold at a discount.
- Relying on these statements, Coulter entered into a retail installment contract to purchase the Aristo Craft cookware for $457.15.
- Several weeks after the purchase, Coulter saw a newspaper advertisement from Dillard's Department Store offering the same cookware for $99.99.
- Coulter went to the department store and confirmed that the advertised cookware was identical to what she had purchased from Scheirman.
- After discovering the price difference, Coulter notified Scheirman and defaulted on her installment payments.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald L. Scheirman (seller) filed an action against Paula Theobold Coulter (buyer) in small claims court to recover the balance due on the contract.
- On Coulter's motion, the case was transferred from the small claims court to the district court.
- The litigants waived a trial by jury.
- The district court, acting as the trial court, entered judgment in favor of the seller, Scheirman, and awarded him attorney's fees.
- Coulter, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Scheirman is the appellee.
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 statement that goods are only available through a distributor and will not be sold at a discount constitute an express warranty under UCC § 2-313?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, J.
No. A seller's statements about the value of goods or their opinion, such as claims about exclusivity or pricing, are considered mere "puffing" and do not create an express warranty. The court reasoned that express warranties under UCC § 2-313 must be absolute assertions pertaining to the quality, character, or condition of the merchandise itself. Statements that are merely an affirmation of value or the seller's commendation do not meet this standard. The trial court, as the trier of fact, correctly determined that the seller's representations were opinions, not express warranties. The court also affirmed the trial court's rejection of Coulter's claims of fraud, unconscionability, and mistake, noting she was an educated buyer who entered the transaction with her 'eyes open.' However, the court reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the seller, holding that the specific provision of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (14A O.S. § 2-413), which prohibits attorney's fees in consumer credit sales under $1,000 with a credit service charge over 10%, prevails over general statutes that might otherwise allow such fees.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the important distinction under the UCC between an enforceable express warranty and non-actionable seller's 'puffing.' It clarifies that representations concerning market conditions, price, or sales channels generally do not constitute warranties as they do not relate to the goods' intrinsic quality or condition. This precedent protects sellers from liability for common sales talk while still holding them accountable for concrete affirmations of fact about the product. The case also serves as a clear example of the legal principle that a specific statute governing a particular subject matter, like the UCCC for consumer credit, will supersede a more general statute in cases of conflict, thereby upholding targeted consumer protections.
Unlock the full brief for Scheirman v. Coulter