STEINMETZ v ROBERTUS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-117 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 RUBEN C. STEINMETZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, -VS- RANDY ROBERTUS and DAVID ROBERTUS, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull and Jones, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Thomas L. Bradley, Laurel, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 27, 1981 1 Filed: EC - 1981 Decided :I, _, 7 :_ 19BI ; Mr. Court. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e I n a n a c t i o n f o r t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e of a n i r r i g a t i o n pump, p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s a n u n f a v o r a b l e judgment of t h e c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury, Yellowstone County. i n the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s a n a c c e p t a n c e of t h e pump on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t s w i t h a c o n s e q u e n t o b l i g a t i o n t o pay t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e . Defendants c l a i m t h e pump was i m p r o p e r l y i n s t a l l e d and s u b s e q u e n t l y damaged, and t h e y have r e f u s e d t o pay f o r t h e pump. P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r review: 1) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o make f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law w i t h r e g a r d t o a c c e p t a n c e , r e j e c t i o n , and r e v o c a t i o n of a c c e p t a n c e under t h e Uniform Commercial Code. 2) Whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t ( p a r t i c u l a r l y f i n d i n g of f a c t no. 3 ) , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment. W e affirm t h e D i s t r i c t Court, holding (1) t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law show t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t a c c e p t t h e pump a s a c c e p t a n c e i s d e f i n e d i n t h e Uniform Commercial Code, and ( 2 ) t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . P l a i n t i f f i s a salesman of farm s e e d and i r r i g a t i o n p r o d u c t s i n J o l i e t , Montana. i n Carbon County. Defendants own and r u n a farm Between J a n u a r y and A p r i l of 1977, p l a i n t i f f , d e f e n d a n t s , and Roy B u c k l i n , d i s c u s s e d t h e proposed i n s t a l l a t i o n of an i r r i g a t i o n system on d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d . Roy B u c k l i n was t h e p r e s i d e n t of P i p e and Pump Supply of G r e y b u l l , Wyoming, which s u p p l i e d t h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s t o p l a i n t i f f salesman. Two b i d s w e r e s u b m i t t e d and r e j e c t e d . p a i d $2,000 on A p r i l 25, 1977. Defendants O n May 1, 1977, p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t s made an o r a l agreement f o r t h e s a l e t o d e f e n d a n t s of a n i r r i g a t i o n system f o r t h e p r i c e of $19,829, which c o v e r e d t h e p r i c e of t h e system less i n s t a l l a t i o n c h a r g e s and v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e p r i c e of t h e pump. Both p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o i n s t a l l and t e s t t h e i r r i g a t i o n system. Defendants had r e q u e s t e d a Western Land R o l l e r pump which was u n a v a i l a b l e . P l a i n t i f f s u b s t i t u t e d a Fairbanks Morse pump, which, a c c o r d i n g t o p l a i n t i f f was d e s i g n e d f o r t h e t y p e of wheel row i r r i g a t i o n system o r d e r e d by d e f e n d a n t s . Whether d e f e n d a n t s a g r e e d t o t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n p r i o r t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s o r d e r i n g t h e F a i r b a n k s Morse pump i s d i s p u t e d . The horsepower of t h e s u b s t i t u t e d pump was l o w e r , t h e p r i c e h i g h e r , t h a n t h a t of t h e pump i n i t i a l l y r e q u e s t e d . Because t h e F a i r b a n k s Morse pump would n o t be r e c e i v e d u n t i l some days a f t e r t h e wheel rows t h e m s e l v e s w e r e i n s t a l l e d , and b e c a u s e , i n t h a t d r o u g h t y e a r , e a r l y i r r i g a t i o n was e s s e n t i a l , p l a i n t i f f s u p p l i e d d e f e n d a n t s w i t h a temporary t r a c t o r - r u n pump. The main l i n e and wheel rows w e r e c o m p l e t e l y i n s t a l l e d by May 1 0 , 1977. The t r a c t o r - r u n power-take-off pump (PTO) was i n s t a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y May 1 4 , 1977, and functioned properly, supplying s u f f i c i e n t water. On May 1 9 , 1977, d e f e n d a n t s p a i d p l a i n t i f f an a d d i t i o n a l $13,384.00, which c o v e r e d t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e of e v e r y t h i n g b u t t h e pump and i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n . The i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e pump r e q u i r e d t h e d i g g i n g of a sump e x c a v a t i o n f o r w a t e r which would s u p p l y t h e pump through a 4'x8'x8' m e t a l - w a l l e d p i p e o r sump. Mr. Bucklin s p e c i f i e d t h e l o c a t i o n and dimensions of t h e e x c a v a t i o n when h e and t h e p l a i n t i f f v i s i t e d d e f e n d a n t s ' ~ u c k l i n l s o d e s i g n e d t h e metal-walled a farm i n mid-May. sump. The e x c a v a t i o n f o r t h e sump was dug by Adams C o n s t r u c t i o n t h e day a f t e r t h e v i s i t of B u c k l i n and S t e i n m e t z . N e i t h e r Bucklin n o r S t e i n m e t z w a s p r e s e n t t o supervise t h e excavating. The m e t a l sump a r r i v e d and was i n s t a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks l a t e r . B e f o r e i n s t a l l a t i o n , t h e sump e x c a v a t i o n w a s re-dug, of c a v e - i n s . because A f t e r t h e sump was i n s t a l l e d , t h e pump w a s a t t a c h e d t o t h e sump. Because t h e pump's column was t o o l o n g t o f i t down i n t o t h e sump, t h e pump was r a i s e d by n a i l i n g r a i l r o a d t i e s t o g e t h e r , c h a i n i n g them t o t h e sump, and b o l t i n g t h e pump t o t h e t o p t i e . Bucklin t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t a t t a c h a s c r e e n t o t h e pump, t h a t such a s c r e e n was o p t i o n a l , and t h a t t h e sump was s c r e e n e d . Plaintiff, B u c k l i n , and a c o u p l e of h e l p e r s s u p e r v i s e d t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n which took a l l of t h e day o f June 5 , 1977. Because e l e c t r i c i t y had n o t y e t been e x t e n d e d t o t h e system, p l a i n t i f f , B u c k l i n , and h e l p e r s d e p a r t e d b e f o r e t h e pump was t u r n e d o n , a s d i d p l a i n t i f f t h e f o l l o w i n g day when t h e w i r i n g was n o t completed by n e a r l y noon. The w a t e r i n t h e sump was " d i r t y . . . mucky looking," a c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t s , and when t h e y t u r n e d t h e pump o n , t h e pump r a n a few m i n u t e s , o u t of t h e pump. then q u i t . N w a t e r e v e r came o A r e l a t i v e "probed around i n t h e bottom of t h e sump and found i t was f u l l of mud and r o c k , " T h a t evening d e f e n d a n t c a l l e d p l a i n t i f f , complaining t h a t t h e pump d i d n o t work. The p l a i n t i f f responded t h a t he would t r y t o come o u t t h e f o l l o w i n g morning. Defendants h i r e d a n o t h e r p a r t y , who c l e a n e d t h e sump t h e n e x t d a y , b u t t h e pump f a i l e d t o pump any w a t e r . P l a i n t i f f was u n a b l e t o come o u t t h a t d a y , and when d e f e n d a n t c a l l e d him t h a t e v e n i n g , a h e a t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n ensued i n which, a c c o r d i n g t o p l a i n t i f f , d e f e n d a n t Randy R o b e r t u s t h r e a t e n e d h i s l i f e . Defendant d e n i e s he made t h e t h r e a t b u t a g r e e s t h a t he became q u i t e a n g r y , and demanded t h a t p l a i n t i f f c a l l Bucklin s o t h e m a t t e r c o u l d be s e t t l e d t h a t n i g h t . T h a t same e v e n i n g , p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d , Bucklin a d v i s e d p l a i n t i f f t o s t a y o u t of t h e m a t t e r and away from t h e R o b e r t u s farm. Bucklin t h e n c a l l e d d e f e n d a n t Randy R o b e r t u s , and a s s u r e d him he would come o u t and check t h e pump. Mr. In fact, B u c k l i n removed t h e pump, which he t e s t i f i e d was choked w i t h " p i e c e s of c o r n s t a l k s , sand and g r a v e l , " which c o u l d damage t h e pump i f l e f t i n i t f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e . B u c k l i n c l e a n e d t h e pump and h i s h i r e d man r e t u r n e d i t i n s e v e r a l days. B u c k l i n t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e pump was undamaged, b u t a d m i t s t h a t t h i s t i m e he d i d i n s t a l l a s c r e e n i n t h e pump. The h i r e d man, James J o n e s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he i n s t a l l e d t h e pump a f t e r Bucklin c l e a n e d i t , i t worked " f o r a s h o r t t i m e u n t i l i t sucked a l l t h e w a t e r o u t " of t h e sump. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he r e t u r n e d a f t e r t h e 4 t h of J u l y t o p i c k up t h e PTO pump, t h e d e f e n d a n t s had s u p p l i e d more w a t e r from an i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h and Randy Robertus made no c o m p l a i n t , b u t i n d i c a t e d he was p l e a s e d w i t h t h e e l e c t r i c a l pump ( t h e F a i r b a n k s Morse). Both B u c k l i n and p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was no f u r t h e r c o m p l a i n t a b o u t t h e working of t h e pump u n t i l October, w e l l a f t e r t h e end of t h e i r r i g a t i n g s e a s o n , when d e f e n d a n t s ' f a t h e r t e l e p h o n e d p l a i n t i f f and demanded t h a t p l a i n t i f f t a k e back t h e pump b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t work p r o p e r l y . P l a i n t i f f presented s i x w i t n e s s e s , a l l of whom t e s t i f i e d t o " d r i v i n g by" t h e R o b e r t u s farm and s e e i n g t h e wheel rows i r r i g a t i n g t h e f i e l d of barley. Defendants deny t h a t t h e y t o l d M r . J o n e s t h e system " p l e a s e d " them; i n f a c t , t h e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t on a t l e a s t t h r e e o c c a s i o n s , t h e y c a l l e d B u c k l i n , complaining t o h i s w i f e o r s e c r e t a r y t h a t t h e pump w a s n o t f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y . B u c k l i n n e v e r responded t o t h e i r c o m p l a i n t s . Defendants t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o r a l m o s t two weeks, t h e y t r i e d t o make t h e pump r u n r i g h t , s w i t c h i n g w a t e r from one wheel row t o t h e o t h e r , then t o both, t r y i n g again. t h e n moving t h e wheel rows and They c l a i m t o have r u n t h e pump 24 h o u r s a day t o no a v a i l ; i t s i n e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n f a i l e d t o i r r i g a t e t h e f i e l d s s u f f i c i e n t l y , and t h e y s u f f e r e d a s e v e r e c r o p l o s s i n t h e f i e l d s , which produced o n l y 20 b u s h e l s p e r a c r e o f b a r l e y i n s t e a d of t h e a n t i c i p a t e d 80 b u s h e l s . Their t e s t i m o n y was c o r r o b o r a t e d by a n e i g h b o r who t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e pump n e v e r worked p r o p e r l y . Defendants r e p l a c e d t h e F a i r b a n k s Morse pump i n s p r i n g of 1978 a t a c o s t of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $4,000.00. A f t e r h a r v e s t , i n October o f 1977, t h e d e f e n d a n t s t f a t h e r c o n t a c t e d p l a i n t i f f and t o l d him t o come and g e t t h e pump -- f o r it. i t d i d n ' t work, and d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t i n t e n d t o pay P l a i n t i f f r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e pump and demanded f u l l payment f o r t h e pump and i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s , a t o t a l of $4,865.00. The o r i g i n a l a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s was i n s t i t u t e d by P i p e and Pump Supply. Defendants d e n i e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e c o m p l a i n t and a l l e g e d t h a t P i p e and Pump Supply was a Wyoming c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h o u t a c e r t i f i c a t e of a u t h o r i t y t o do b u s i n e s s i n Montana and had no s t a n d i n g t o s u e . Defendants c o u n t e r c l a i m e d a g a i n s t Ruben S t e i n m e t z r e q u e s t i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f t a k e n o t h i n g by t h e i r a c t i o n and s e e k i n g damages i n t h e amount of $6,000.00. Subsequently, t h i r d - p a r t y defendant Steinmetz counterclaimed a g a i n s t defendants Robertus. Defendants R o b e r t u s moved f o r d i s m i s s a l of t h e c o m p l a i n t of P i p e and Pump Supply and t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m by S t e i n m e t z . The motion w a s g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on September 5 , 1979, a n d , i n a --- o r d e r d a t e d September 1 4 , 1979, Nunc P r o Tunc t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e motions t o d i s m i s s be g r a n t e d without prejudice. S t e i n m e t z f i l e d a n amended c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s R o b e r t u s on October 1 2 , 1979, a l l e g i n g t h e s a l e of a wheel row i r r i g a t i o n system a t an a g r e e d upon p r i c e of $20,249.00 and d e f e n d a n t s ' b a l a n c e of $4,865.00, f a i l u r e t o pay t h e and r e q u e s t i n g judgment i n t h e amount of t h e b a l a n c e due and c o s t s . Defendants d e n i e d a l l a l l e g a t i o n s . T r i a l was had on December 11, 1980. On December 1 5 , 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w and e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s , d i s m i s s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t and awarding c o s t s t o t h e defendants. P l a i n t i f f appeals. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law a r e as f o l l o w s : "FINDINGS OF FACT "1. T h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e d e f e n d a n t s on A p r i l 25, 1977, e n t e r e d i n t o a n agreement whereby p l a i n t i f f was t o p r o v i d e and i n s t a l l a wheel r o l l i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m , t o g e t h e r w i t h a pump, f o r t h e p r i c e of $20,249.00, which c o n s i s t e d of t h e s m of $13,384.00 f o r t h e u wheel r o l l s p r i n k l e r and $4,365.00 f o r t h e pump; t h a t d e f e n d a n t s have p a i d $13,365.00 f o r t h e wheel r o l l system. [Defendants made a $2,000.00 down payment on t h e wheel r o l l system i n A p r i l , and p a i d a n a d d i t i o n a l $13,384.00 i n May. The t o t a l p r i c e of t h e wheel r o l l system was $15,384.00. The c o s t of t h e wheel r o l l s , p l u s t h e u n p a i d amount -$4,365.00 f o r t h e pump and $500.00 f o r i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n -- b r o u g h t t h e c o n t r a c t amount t o $20,249.00.1 "2. T h a t t h e wheel r o l l i r r i g a t i o n system was t o be i n s t a l l e d and working upon d e f e n d a n t s ' farm i n Carbon County, Montana, w i t h i n t e n (10) days. " 3 . That t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o properly i n s t a l l s a i d pump i n t h a t t h e pump was i n s t a l l e d i n a sump t h a t was f i l l e d w i t h mud and t r a s h ; t h a t no s c r e e n was p l a c e d o v e r t h e i n t a k e of s a i d pump; t h a t t h e pump drew i n mud and t r a s h and was damaged; t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o t e s t s a i d pump o r i r r i g a t i o n system; t h a t a s a consequence t h e pump f a i l e d t o work and f a i l e d t o a d e q u a t e l y i r r i g a t e t h e l a n d s of t h e d e f e n d a n t s a s c a l l e d f o r i n t h e agreement. "4. T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were f o r c e d t o remove t h e pump o f t h e p l a i n t i f f and s u b s e q u e n t l y had t o p u r c h a s e a new pump from a n o t h e r supplier. "5. That defendants o f f e r e d t o r e t u r n t h e pump t o t h e p l a i n t i f f b u t t h a t p l a i n t i f f ref u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e same and r e f u s e d t o make t h e wheel r o l l system o p e r a b l e . "From t h e f o r e g o i n g F a c t s , t h e C o u r t draws t h e following: "CONCLUSIONS O L W F A "1. T h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a n o p e r a b l e pump a s r e q u i r e d under h i s a g r e e ment w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s . "2. T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s have o f f e r e d t o r e t u r n p l a i n t i f f ' s pump, b u t p l a i n t i f f r e f u s e s t o a c c e p t t h e same. "3. T h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d be d i s missed and judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e defendants. " P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t because n e i t h e r t h e defendants' answer denying p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n s n o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n s o f a c c e p t a n c e , r e j e c t i o n , and r e v o c a t i o n a s s e t f o r t h i n Montana's Uniform Commercial Code, t h i s C o u r t must r e v e r s e and remand w i t h o r d e r s t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o e n t e r judgment i n f a v o r of t h e p l a i n t i f f . Plaintiff c i t e s B a l l a n t y n e v . The Anaconda Company ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 574 P.2d 582, 175 Mont. 406, a s r e q u i r i n g f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law i n s u p p o r t of a judgment. While t h e C o u r t i n t h a t c a s e d i d d e s c r i b e t h e p u r p o s e and f u n c t i o n of a w r i t t e n o p i n i o n , t h e C o u r t d i r e c t e d t h e c a s e be remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t which was d i r e c t e d t o s e t f o r t h t h e r e a s o n f o r i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s new t r i a l i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., which s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e s t h a t a c o u r t g r a n t i n g new t r i a l s h a l l s p e c i f y t h e grounds w i t h s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i t y a s t o a p p r i s e t h e p a r t i e s and t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e r a t i o n a l e u n d e r l y i n g t h e r u l i n g . C e r t a i n l y t h i s C o u r t would much p r e f e r a more p r e c i s e and d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t of f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law t h a n t h o s e p r e p a r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n d e c i d i n g t h i s action. W e approve t h e q u o t a t i o n i n B a l l a n t y n e from t h e comment of Chief J u s t i c e Hughes: "[A] well-stated o p i n i o n i s of g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a s a c h a r t of t h e r e a s o n i n g f o l l o w e d by t h e t r i a l judge i n r e a c h i n g a decision." B a l l a n t y n e v. Anaconda Co, 175 Mont. a t 409, 574 P.2d a t 584. A s s e t f o r t h i n Rule 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d f o r o u r r e v i e w of f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s is: " F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h a l l n o t be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and due r e g a r d s h a l l be g i v e n t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses." W e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n t h i s c a s e were c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , i n l i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d and t h e c o n s i s t e n c y of t h e f i n d i n g s w i t h t h e U C C r s p r o v i s i o n s g o v e r n i n g r e j e c t i o n of non-conforming goods. Montana UCC s t a t e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : . . . [ I ] t h e goods o r t h e t e n d e r f "30-2-601. of d e l i v e r y f a i l i n any r e s p e c t t o conform t o t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e buyer may: " ( a ) r e j e c t t h e whole. . . "30-2-602. (1) R e j e c t i o n of goods must be w i t h i n a reasonable time a f t e r t h e i r d e l i v e r y o r tender. I t i s i n e f f e c t i v e u n l e s s t h e buyer seasonably n o t i f i e s the seller. " 30-2-606. (1) Acceptance of goods o c c u r s when t h e buyer: " ( a ) a f t e r a reasonable opportunity t o i n s p e c t t h e goods s i g n i f i e s t o t h e s e l l e r t h a t t h e goods a r e conforming o r t h a t he w i l l t a k e o r r e t a i n them i n s p i t e of t h e i r noncomformity; o r " ( b ) f a i l s t o make an e f f e c t i v e r e j e c t i o n (subs e c t i o n (1) of 30-2-602), b u t such a c c e p t a n c e d o e s n o t o c c u r u n t i l t h e buyer h a s had a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t them; o r " ( c ) d o e s any a c t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e l l e r ' s ownership; b u t i f such a c t i s wrongful as a g a i n s t t h e s e l l e r it i s an acceptance only i f r a t i f i e d by him." S e c t i o n 30-2-601 -. - , MCA. et seq. There was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f o l l o w i n g conclusions: ( a ) The goods were non-conforming o r were i m p r o p e r l y delivered. The p a r t i e s a r e a g r e e d t h a t i t was p a r t of t h e agreement, and a m a t t e r of common p r a c t i c e i n t h e i r r i g a t i o n equipment t r a d e , f o r t h e s e l l e r t o s u p e r v i s e t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a n i r r i g a t i o n system and t e s t i t s performance. Here, b o t h p l a i n t i f f and h i s s u p p l i e r were p r e s e n t t h e day t h e pump was i n s t a l l e d and y e t t h e r e were a number of q u e s t i o n a b l e occurrences. The s c r e e n l e s s pump drew i n s u f f i c i e n t d e b r i s t o clog it before any_ w a t e r was pumped t o t h e wheel rows. Both B u c k l i n and p l a i n t i f f S t e i n m e t z l e f t t h e farm b e f o r e t h e i r r i g a t i o n pump was t e s t e d . Neither Bucklin nor p l a i n t i f f r e t u r n e d t o t h e farm t o t e s t t h e system a f t e r i t s " c u r e " and a s c e r t a i n t h a t i t was f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y ; t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n s were l i m i t e d t o what t h e y c o u l d see " d r i v i n g by" t h e farm. ( b ) There was a f a i l u r e t o c u r e t h e d e f e c t s of t h e pump. Defendants c o n t a c t e d p l a i n t i f f e a r l y and e m p h a t i c a l l y , t h e day a f t e r t h e pump's i n s t a l l a t i o n , c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t d i d n o t work. They made a number of u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s a f t e r t h e a t t e m p t e d " c u r e " t o c o n t a c t B u c k l i n , who a d m i t t e d l y was f u l f i l l i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s d u t i e s f o l l o w i n g t h e h a r s h exchange between p l a i n t i f f and Randy R o b e r t u s , w i t h o u t any r e s p o n s e from B u c k l i n . (c) F i n a l l y and p e r h a p s most i m p o r t a n t l y , d e f e n d a n t s t e n t o twelve d a y s ' " u s e " of t h e pump i n J u n e o r e a r l y J u l y was i n f a c t a p r o l o n g e d e f f o r t t o d e t e r m i n e why t h e pump f a i l e d t o work and t o c u r e t h e d e f e c t t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e a b s e n c e of any r e s p o n s e by t h e p l a i n t i f f defendants' complaints. ( o r Bucklin) t o A s such, i t was n e v e r a n a c t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s e l l e r ' s ownership under S e c t i o n 3 0 - 2 - 6 0 6 ( 1 ) ( c ) , MCA, b u t r a t h e r a r e a s o n a b l e and t i m e l y i n s p e c t i o n of t h e pump, under S e c t i o n 30-2-606(1) ( b ) , MCA, t o d e t e r m i n e i f i t was o r c o u l d be i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e agreement. The Montana Power r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e pump was n o t used f o r " s e v e r a l months," a s p l a i n t i f f c h a r g e s , b u t f o r no more t h a n two weeks t o t a l . Defendants t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o r n e a r l y t h a t l e n g t h of t i m e , t h e y t r i e d , w i t h o u t s u c c e s s , e v e r y c o n c e i v a b l e v a r i a t i o n of r i g g i n g up t h e wheel r o l l s and changing t h e i r l o c a t i o n t o t r y t o make t h e pump work a s p l a i n t i f f had a s s u r e d them i t would work. Montana's Uniform Commercial Code p r o v i d e s ". . . a c c e p t a n c e d o e s n o t o c c u r u n t i l t h e buyer h a s had a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t [ t h e goods] MCA. ." S e c t i o n 30-2-606 (1)( b ) , When t h e goods i n q u e s t i o n can o n l y be i n s p e c t e d by p u t t i n g them t o t h e u s e f o r which t h e y a r e i n t e n d e d , a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e f o r i n s p e c t i o n n a t u r a l l y w i l l be l o n g e r t h a n i f t h e goods a r e i t e m s whose c o n f o r m i t y o r nonconformity c a n be d e t e r m i n e d s i m p l y by l o o k i n g a t them. A c o u r t must be r e a l i s t i c i n a p p r a i s i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of a b u y e r ' s o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t , and s h o u l d n o t h o l d t h a t t h e buyer h a s a c c e p t e d where b e c a u s e of t h e t e c h n i c a l o r complex n a t u r e of t h e goods t h e buyer c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h a y a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y u n t i l h e a c t u a l l y makes u s e of them. 2 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, ( ~ u p p .1 9 8 1 ) , 191-192. (2d e d . 1971) When a b u y e r a t t e m p t s t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e s e l l e r , and "work t h e bugs o u t " o f a complex p i e c e of machinery by b r i e f l y p u t t i n g t h e machinery t o i t s i n t e n d e d u s e , h e s h o u l d n o t be a c t i n g a t h i s p e r i l . Courts should be h e s i t a n t t o f i n d t h a t such a c t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e l l e r ' s ownership. S e e White and Summers, Uniform Commercial Code (2d e d . 1 9 8 0 ) , 300. Here, d e f e n d a n t s w e r e a s s u r e d t h a t t h e pump i n q u e s t i o n was d e s i g n e d t o s u p p l y two t o t h r e e wheel rows w i t h a d e q u a t e water. D e f e n d a n t s ' u s e of t h e pump c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d t h e "period of experimentation" recognized i n C a r l Beasley Ford, I n c . v. Burroughs Corp. aff'd. - unpub. in =., (E.D. Pa. 1 9 7 3 ) , 361 F.Supp. (3rd C i r . ) , 325, 493 F.2d 1400. I t i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t m e r e n o t i f i c a t i o n of poor q u a l i t y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e r e j e c t i o n under t h e Uniform Commercial Code. S e e S o u t h e a s t e r n S t e e l v. B u r t o n Block & C o n c r e t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 273 S.C. cases cited therein. 634, 258 S.E.2d 888, and Here w e f i n d more t h a n m e r e n o t i f i c a - D e f e n d a n t Randy R o b e r t u s t w i c e c o n t a c t e d p l a i n t i f f tion. b e f o r e t h e a t t e m p t e d " c u r e " o f t h e pump's d e f e c t s ; d e f e n d a n t s t h r e e t i m e s c o n t a c t e d Roy B u c k l i n , who was a c t i n g on p l a i n t i f f ' s b e h a l f , a f t e r t h e i n e f f e c t u a l " c u r e " of t h o s e d e f e c t s ; and d e f e n d a n t s , who had p a i d t h e t o t a l p r i c e o f t h e wheel r o l l s y s t e m w i t h i n d a y s o f i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n , r e f u s e d t o pay any p a r t o f t h e pump p u r c h a s e p r i c e o v e r a p e r i o d of s e v e r a l months. W e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law a r e n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e Montana UCC d e s p i t e t h a t c o u r t ' s r e g r e t t a b l e f a i l u r e t o develop a c l e a r s t a t e m e n t of t h e f a c t s a s t h e y r e l a t e t o a p p l i c a b l e Montana law on s a l e s . Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was no a c c e p t a n c e by t h e d e f e n d a n t s , no a c t u a l u s e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e ownership of t h e p l a i n t i f f , and no d e l a y i n o f f e r i n g a r e t u r n of non-conforming goods s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o j u s t i f y a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t s had a c c e p t e d t h e pump. I1 P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u p p o r t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d much of t h e r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e . W have e This Court w i l l uphold f i n d i n g s based on c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e when t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e whole r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g such f i n d i n g s . The e v i d e n c e must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o the prevailing party. , Mont. P.2d Toeckes v. Baker ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 37 St.Rep. , Weston v . Kuntz ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 38 St.Rep. Mont. , 1691, 1693; 611 P.2d 609, 611, 948, 950; H a g f e l t v. Mahaffey ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. There i s ample e v i d e n c e of a n agreement t h a t p l a i n t i f f would s u p p l y a pump c a p a b l e of p r o v i d i n g two, p e r h a p s t h r e e , wheel rows w i t h a d e q u a t e w a t e r , and t h a t p l a i n t i f f would s u p e r v i s e t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n and t e s t i n g of t h e system once i t was installed. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e system d i d n o t o p e r a t e a t a l l i n i t i a l l y , and t h a t f o l l o w i n g d e f e n d a n t s ' c o m p l a i n t s and nonpayment f o r t h e pump and installation, p l a i n t i f f ' s supplier, a t p l a i n t i f f ' s request, a t t e m p t e d t o f i x t h e pump. Defendants have p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e pump n e v e r f u n c t i o n e d p r o p e r l y and was n e v e r made e f f e c t i v e d e s p i t e d e f e n d a n t s ' c o n t i n u e d p r o t e s t s t o p l a i n t i f f ' s s u p p l i e r who was a c t i n g a s p l a i n t i f f ' s middleman a f t e r t h e J u n e 1 7 t h q u a r r e l between p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t Randy Robertus. Defendants t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s a r e s u l t of t h e pump's f a i l u r e , a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of t h e b a r l e y c r o p was l o s t , and d e f e n d a n t s purchased a new pump t h e f o l l o w i n g spring. W f i n d t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting t h e e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . Affirmed. W e Concur: s-.,4dq%4 Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.