Tucker v. Aqua Yacht Harbor Corp.
749 F. Supp. 142, 1990 WL 163897 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under both the Uniform Commercial Code (as adopted by Mississippi) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a seller must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure a defect before a buyer can revoke acceptance. Filing a lawsuit while the seller is actively engaged in substantial repairs or replacement of the defective goods constitutes a denial of this reasonable opportunity.
Facts:
- On June 18, 1988, the Tuckers purchased a new boat manufactured by Aluminum Cruisers, which was equipped with two marine engines manufactured by Chrysler.
- Chrysler provided a one-year limited warranty promising to repair or replace defective parts.
- In August 1988, the starboard engine began leaking oil. Aqua Yacht, the retailer, attempted to repair it in September 1988 and again in February 1989 after the leak returned.
- In April 1989, the port engine failed, and in early May 1989, the starboard engine also failed completely.
- On May 10, 1989, Chrysler's representative agreed to Mr. Tucker's demand that the engines be replaced rather than repaired.
- The Tuckers delivered the boat to Wholesale Marine, Inc. for the engine replacement, and Chrysler shipped two new engine blocks within days.
- Wholesale Marine began the process of installing the new engine blocks in early June 1989.
Procedural Posture:
- The Tuckers (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against Chrysler, Aluminum Cruisers, and Aqua Yacht Harbor Corp. (defendants) alleging breach of warranty and other claims.
- Aqua Yacht filed a cross-claim against Chrysler and Aluminum Cruisers, seeking indemnity.
- Chrysler filed a cross-claim against Aqua Yacht, seeking indemnity.
- Chrysler filed a motion for summary judgment against the Tuckers on all claims in their complaint and against Aqua Yacht on its cross-claim.
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 the Uniform Commercial Code and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, does a buyer's filing of a lawsuit while the seller is actively in the process of replacing defective goods deny the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Senter, Chief Judge
Yes, filing a lawsuit while a seller is actively replacing defective goods denies the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure. Both state law (by analogy to UCC § 2-508) and federal law (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act § 2310(e)) require that a seller be given a reasonable chance to fix a product's defects before a buyer revokes acceptance. While this right is not unlimited, and a buyer is not required to permit endless 'tinkering,' the initiation of a lawsuit while the seller is in the process of providing the very remedy the buyer demanded—complete replacement of the engines—is unreasonable as a matter of law. Here, Chrysler promptly shipped new engine blocks once the problem was diagnosed and was in the midst of completing the installation. The Tuckers' decision to sue at that moment, rather than await the outcome of the comprehensive cure they requested, deprived Chrysler of its legal right to a reasonable opportunity to fulfill its warranty obligations.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the seller's 'right to cure' in the context of a buyer's revocation of acceptance. It establishes that filing a lawsuit during an active and substantial repair or replacement effort is premature and legally indefensible. The decision provides significant protection for manufacturers and sellers who are making good-faith efforts to comply with their warranty obligations, even after initial repair attempts have failed. For future cases, it sets a precedent that courts will evaluate the reasonableness of a buyer's revocation based on the seller's actions at the time of revocation, distinguishing between a seller who is 'tinkering indefinitely' and one who is taking definitive steps to resolve the problem.
