C.R.daniels Inc v.yazoo Mfg. Co. Inc. 641 F.supp.205 1986

8/9/2019 C.R.daniels Inc v.yazoo Mfg. Co. Inc. 641 F.supp.205 1986

1/9

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Date/Time of Request: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:35 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESS

Database: FSFIND

Citation Text: 641 F.Supp. 205

Lines: 432

Documents: 1

Images: 0

11.7 Sellers Right to Recover the Purchase Price Contract Sales and Lease Contracts: Performance and Breach

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,

West and their affiliates.


2/9

United States District Court,S.D. Mississippi,

Jackson Division.

C.R. DANIELS, INC., Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

v.

YAZOO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., De-

fendant/Counterclaimant.

Civ. A. No. J84-0602(L).

June 27, 1986.

Action was instituted on complaint by seller for price ofgoods and on counterclaim by buyer for breach of war-

ranty. The District Court, Tom S. Lee, J., held that: (1)

conduct of buyer when, though aware of tremendous

magnitude of problem with cracked chutes on grass

catcher bags which were subject of sale, continued to

indicate to seller that it would attempt to sell bags it had

in stock and anticipated delivery of bags sometime in

future, when combined with buyer's continued attempts

to sell bags and its destruction of defective bags, consti-

tuted an acceptance of goods under law of Mississippi

and afforded a basis upon which seller could sue to re-

cover price of goods, and (2) recovery by buyer on its

counterclaim against seller for breach of warranty was

foreclosed by law of Mississippi when buyer, though

notifying seller of defect in grass catcher bags which

were subject of sale, failed to inform seller that condi-

tion of bags rose to level of a breach.

Judgment accordingly.

West Headnotes

[1] Sales 343 178(4)

343 Sales

343IV Performance of Contract

343IV(C) Delivery and Acceptance of Goods

343k178 Acts Constituting Acceptance

343k178(4) k. Use or Other Disposition by

Buyer. Most Cited Cases

Sales 343 342

343 Sales343VII Remedies of Seller

343VII(E) Actions for Price or Value

343k341 Right of Action

343k342 k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Conduct of buyer when, though aware of tremendous

magnitude of problem with cracked chutes on grass

catcher bags which were subject of sale, continued to

indicate to seller that it would attempt to sell bags it had

in stock and anticipated delivery of bags sometime in

future, when combined with buyer's continued attempts

to sell bags and its destruction of defective bags, consti-tuted acceptance of goods under law of Mississippi

and afforded basis upon which seller could sue to recov-

er price of goods. Miss.Code 1972, 75-2-606,

75-2-709.

[2] Sales 343 128

343 Sales

343III Modification or Rescission of Contract

343III(C) Rescission or Revocation of Accept-

ance by Buyer

343k128 k. Acts Constituting Rescission.

Most Cited Cases

Sales 343 342

343 Sales

343VII Remedies of Seller


343k341 Right of Action

343k342 k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Buyer's acceptance of grass catcher bags with cracked

chutes was not effectively revoked under law of Missis-

sippi and was a basis upon which seller could sue to re-

cover price of goods when buyer indicated to seller that

it would accept future shipments and continued, even to

time of trial, to attempt to sell bags and frames.

Miss.Code 1972, 75-2-608, 75-2-709.

[3] Sales 343 127

Page 1

641 F.Supp. 205, 2 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 481

(Cite as: 641 F.Supp. 205)

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IVhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IV%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IV%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k178http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k178%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k178%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k341http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k342http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k342http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-606&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k128http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k128http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k341http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k342http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k342http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k342http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k342http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k341http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k128http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k128http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-606&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k342http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k342http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k341http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k178%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k178%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k178http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IV%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IVhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343


3/9

343 Sales

343III Modification or Rescission of Contract

343III(C) Rescission or Revocation of Accept-

ance by Buyer

343k127 k. Election to Rescind, and Notice.

Most Cited Cases

Notice requirements for revocation of acceptance under

law of Mississippi were not complied with when buyer

made only vague allegations of shoddy merchandise

in its communications with seller and, though attempt-

ing to excuse its lack of specificity by faulting seller's

failure to inquire, continued to project future sales.

Miss.Code 1972, 75-2-608.

[4] Sales 343 360(1)

343 Sales



343k360 Amount of Recovery

343k360(1) k. In General. Most Cited

Cases

An award of $154,493.95, to include cost, labor and

overhead, selling and administrative expense, and profit

relating to manufacture, would be made to seller under

law of Mississippi in action to recover price of goods

from buyer. Miss.Code 1972, 75-2-606, 75-2-709.

[5] Sales 343 368

343 Sales



343k368 k. Costs. Most Cited Cases

Attorney fees were not recoverable by seller under law

of Mississippi when its claim against buyer was based

on contract rather than open account. Miss.Code 1972,

11-53-81.

[6] Sales 343 427

343 Sales

343VIII Remedies of Buyer

343VIII(D) Actions and Counterclaims for

Breach of Warranty

343k427 k. Right of Action. Most Cited Cases

Acceptance of goods without revocation does not pre-

clude a buyer from proceeding in Mississippi on claim

against seller for breach of warranty. Miss.Code 1972,

75-2-607(3)(a), (4), 75-2-714.

[7] Sales 343 441(3)

343 Sales



Breach of Warranty

343k438 Evidence

343k441 Weight and Sufficiency

343k441(3) k. Breach of Warranty.

Most Cited Cases

Stipulation of parties to effect that polyethelene sheet-

ing out of which grass catcher bags were constructed by

seller was defective causing chutes to become brittle

and crack was sufficient under Mississippi law to estab-

lish elements of buyer's counterclaim against seller for

breach of warranty. Miss.Code 1972, 75-2-607(3)(a),

(4), 75-2-714.

[8] Sales 343 441(3)

343 Sales



Breach of Warranty

343k438 Evidence

343k441 Weight and Sufficiency

343k441(3) k. Breach of Warranty.

Most Cited Cases

Recovery by buyer on its counterclaim against seller for

breach of warranty was foreclosed by law of Mississippi

when buyer, though notifying seller of defect in grass

catcher bags which were subject of sale, failed to in-

form seller that condition of bags rose to level of

breach. Miss.Code 1972, 75-2-607(3)(a), (4),

75-2-714.*206 Robert P. Thompson, Gerald, Brand, Watters, Cox

& Hemleben, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff/

counterdefendant.

Brad Sessum, Young, Scanlon & Sessums, Jackson,

Miss., for defendant/counterclaimant.

Page 2



http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k127http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k360http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k360%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k360%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k360%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-606&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k368http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k368http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS11-53-81&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS11-53-81&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k427http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k427http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k438http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k441http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k441%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k441%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k438http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k441http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k441%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k441%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k441%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k441%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k441http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k438http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k441%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k441%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k441http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k438http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k427http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k427http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS11-53-81&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS11-53-81&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k368http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k368http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-606&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k360%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k360%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k360%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k360http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VII%28E%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=343k127http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343k127http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=343


4/9

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TOM S. LEE, District Judge.

This cause came before the court for trial on the com-plaint of the plaintiff, C.R. Daniels, Inc. (Daniels), and

the counterclaim of the defendant, Yazoo Manufactur-

ing Company, Inc. (Yazoo). Based on the testimony of

witnesses and the exhibits admitted at trial, the court

makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of

law.

In June 1981, Charles Silvernail, who was then vice

president of Daniels, and James Kerr, who was at that

time president of Yazoo, began negotiating an agree-

ment whereby Daniels would design and manufacture

grass catcher bags for S series lawn mowers to be

manufactured by Yazoo. Daniels was to begin manufac-

ture upon approval by Yazoo of a design and sample of

the proposed bag. Although Kerr made it clear to Silver-

nail and his successor, Tom Stavinoha, that timing was

critical because of the seasonal nature of Yazoo's busi-

ness, he did not deliver an S series mower to Daniels

until late November 1981. The bag design and sample

were approved in December 1981 although frames for

use with the bag were not approved until February

1982.FN1

FN1. Final approval of the bags was dependent

on approval of the frames since they were to be

used together.

The agreement between Daniels and Yazoo was reduced

to writing in the form of a series of purchase orders is-

sued by defendant and signed by Kerr, with each repla-

cing earlier purchase orders.FN2

The initial purchase

order was issued on October 23, 1981, prior to final ap-

proval of the designs, so that Daniels could begin order-

ing raw materials. In the October 23 purchase order,

Yazoo contracted for 20,000 bags and the evidence

showed that Daniels thereafter purchased material to

manufacture as *207 many bags. The bag order was

altered by purchase order dated December 28, 1981 to

reflect a change in price. The initial purchase order for

frames was dated December 28, 1981 and ordered

10,500 frames. Subsequent purchase orders issued in

April, May and June merely altered the delivery sched-

uleFN3

but did not change the total number of bags and

frames ordered.FN4

FN2. The evidence showed that this system

was understood by both parties.

FN3. No objection was made by either party re-

garding the delivery changes.

FN4. One purchase order did change the price

of the frames to correspond with an agreement

regarding painting.

After the initial shipment, Daniels, at the request of Ya-

zoo, changed from bulk packages to individual boxes

containing ten or sixteen bags to expedite shipment toYazoo dealers. In the smaller packages, the chutes on

the bags were flattened. On July 5, 1982, Yazoo issued

a purchase order stating, Do not ship anything else as

we were forced to shut down by CPSC [Consumer

Product Safety Commission] law effective 6/30/82. Will

advise new shipping SKD [schedule] in September 82.

As of July 5, 1982, 8368 grass bags and 4466 frames

had been received by Yazoo.

Kerr testified that in June 1982, he began to see evid-

ence of a problem with cracking chutes on the bags. He

sent a damaged bag to Stavinoha who informed Kerrthat, based on the presence of tire marks on the bag,

Daniels had determined the problem to be caused by ab-

use.FN5

Kerr also testified that he sent two other bags

to Stavinoha in 1982 and 1983, apparently without a

cover letter. Stavinoha denied receipt and Kerr offered

neither physical proof that the bags were sent nor ex-

planation for his failure to contact Stavinoha when no

response was forthcoming.FN6

FN5. At trial, Kerr testified that the tire marks

were the result of his driving over the bag to

test it. There was no evidence that he told

Stavinoha of this.

FN6. Stavinoha testified that he did not learn of

the cracked chute problem until August 1984,

after this suit was filed.

Page 3





5/9

On July 19, 1982, Stavinoha met with Kerr to discuss

delivery schedules. Kerr stated that he expected Yazoo

to be exempted from the government regulations in

September and that he would talk to Stavinoha at that

time. According to the testimony of Stavinoha, Kerr did

not indicate that future deliveries would not be accep-

ted. When Stavinoha and Kerr talked in September,

Kerr was unable to set a delivery date due to excess in-

ventory although Yazoo had by then obtained an ex-

emption from government regulations. Kerr and

Stavinoha agreed to meet in December 1982 and Kerr

again did not indicate that the remaining bags and

frames would not be accepted. Throughout this time,

Daniels continued to manufacture bags and frames. On

October 14, 1982, Kerr sent to Daniels a photocopy of

the July 5 purchase order with cancelled written on itsface. Kerr offered no explanation at that time for the at-

tempted cancellation. Stavinoha did not recall seeing

this purchase order.

When the dispute regarding scheduling was not resolved

by December 1982, Robert Parks, treasurer of Daniels,

began handling the account. On December 29, Parks

wrote Kerr asking for a delivery schedule. Kerr respon-

ded with a handwritten note on Parks' letter,FN7

stating

that the product was not holding up in the field and

that the order had been cancelled. Kerr's note also stated

that he would try to use what you have when we canmove out what we have,

FN8in spite of the fact that,

according to his testimony, he was aware of a wide-

spread problem with the bags by this time. Parks wrote

back to Kerr, stating that the product was good and

threatening suit if Yazoo did not comply with the con-

tract. *208 Another Daniels official, Philip R. Am-

atucci, wrote Kerr on January 13, 1983, also requesting

payment.

FN7. Kerr testified that this was his usual busi-

ness practice.

FN8. On the day following Kerr's response,

Yazoo sent to Daniels a form letter thanking

Daniels for his Good Supply, Excellent

Product, On Time Deliveries, Warranty Ac-

ceptance, and Engineering Expertise. Kerr ex-

plained that the letter was merely a form letter

sent to all suppliers and the court places no sig-

nificance on it.

On February 7, 1983, Kerr wrote a lengthy letter to

Parks and Amatucci, stating that product defects had

been reported to Stavinoha. He suggested that Daniels

let [Kerr] move out in the sales area and work it out as

the recession/Depression starts to ease up and the sea-

son begins. In this letter, Kerr also mentioned that

$64.40 was due to Yazoo from Daniels for warranty

claims and expressed a desire that this claim be handled

as expeditiously as previous ones, although Yazoo

offered no proof that previous warranty claims had been

made or paid.FN9

Parks responded on February 18 re-

questing information from Kerr regarding when a deliv-

ery schedule could be established but not mentioningthe alleged defects. By handwritten notes dated March

7, Kerr suggested delivery of 1000 units in early April

and later that month communicated to Daniels that Ya-

zoo intended to sell 3800 bags and 2900 frames in 1983.

FN9. In the February 7 letter, Kerr also referred

to late deliveries. The court finds that altera-

tions in delivery schedules were approved by

both parties. Accordingly, late delivery does

not constitute a ground for breach.

Daniels' attorney wrote Yazoo on May 18 demandingpayment. Yazoo's counsel responded and notified

Daniels for the first time of the specific complaints

which Yazoo had with the bags and frames. Following

initiation of this suit, Daniels' attorney was invited to

view inspection of the bags in Yazoo's inventory. The

inspection revealed that ninety-two percent of the bags

had cracked chutes.FN10

Until this time, Daniels had

been unaware that the chutes were defective in a sub-

stantial number of bags. Upon learning the results of

Yazoo's inspection, Daniels found that approximately

seventy-five percent of the bags that it held were also

faulty.

FN10. Kerr testified that he disposed of the

bags that were defective.

DANIELS' CLAIM

Page 4





6/9

[1] Daniels brought this suit to recover the price of the

goods pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. 75-2-709 (1972),

which provides in part:

(1) When the buyer fails to pay the price as it be-

comes due the seller may recover, together with any

incidental damages under the next section, the price

(a) of goods accepted or conforming goods lost or

damaged within a commercially reasonable time after

risk of their loss is passed to the buyer; and

(b) of goods identified to the contract if the seller is

unable after reasonable effort to resell them at a reas-

onable price or the circumstances reasonably indicate

that such effort will be unavailing.

Yazoo argues that it never accepted the bags and

frames, relying on Miss.Code Ann. 75-2-606 (1972),

which provides in part:

(1) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer

(a) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the

goods signifies to the seller that the goods are con-

forming or that he will take or retain them in spite of

their nonconformity; or

(b) fails to make an effective rejection (subsection 1

of section 2-602) [ 75-2-602(1) ], but such accept-ance does not occur until the buyer has had a reason-

able opportunity to inspect them; or

(c) does any act inconsistent with the seller's own-

ership; but if such act is wrongful as against the seller

it is an acceptance only if ratified by him.

Yazoo contends that the nature of the packaging

delayed Yazoo's opportunity to inspect the goods and

discover the defect. The boxes containing ten to sixteen

bags were shipped unopened to dealers thereby delaying

discovery. It is undisputed that at least by December1982, Kerr was aware of the tremendous magnitude of

the problem with cracked chutes. Thereafter, however,

he continued to indicate to Daniels*209 that Yazoo

would attempt to sell the bags it had in stock and anti-

cipated delivery of bags some time in the future. By his

action, Kerr signified to Daniels that the bags were ac-

cepted in spite of his knowledge of their nonconformity.

Additionally, Yazoo's continued attempts to sell the

bags, as well as its destruction of the defective bags,

were inconsistent with an effective rejection. Accord-

ingly, this court is of the opinion that Yazoo accepted

the bags under section 75-2-606.

[2] Yazoo further contends that even if the bags were

accepted, acceptance was later revoked pursuant to the

terms ofsection 75-2-608, which states:

(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or

commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially

impairs its value to him if he has accepted it

(a) on the reasonable assumption that its noncon-

formity would be cured and it has not been season-

ably cured; or

(b) without discovery of such nonconformity if his

acceptance was reasonably induced either by the dif-

ficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the

seller's assurances.

(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a

reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should

have discovered the ground for it and before any sub-

stantial change in condition of the goods which is not

caused by their own defects. It is not effective untilthe buyer notifies the seller of it.

In Delhomme Industries, Inc. v. Houston Beechcraft,

Inc., 735 F.2d 177 (5th Cir.1984), the buyer sold an air-

plane back to the seller at a loss after encountering nu-

merous problems with the plane and subsequently sued

the seller for damages. The court affirmed the district

court's conclusion that the buyer did not effectively re-

voke acceptance, stating:

Revocation of acceptance by a buyer under the UCC

is necessarily a recognition by the buyer that the

property [as to which acceptance is revoked] belongs

to the seller. Stroh v. American Recreation and Mo-

bile Home Corporation of Colorado, 35 Colo.App.

196, 530 P.2d 989, 993 (1975). Consequently, a buy-

er's act of dominion over the goods, including the sale

of the goods, is inconsistent with a claim by the buyer

Page 5



http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-606&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-606&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1984129085http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1984129085http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1984129085http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975124976&ReferencePosition=993http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975124976&ReferencePosition=993http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975124976&ReferencePosition=993http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975124976&ReferencePosition=993http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975124976&ReferencePosition=993http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975124976&ReferencePosition=993http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975124976&ReferencePosition=993http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975124976&ReferencePosition=993http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1984129085http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1984129085http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1984129085http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-606&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-606&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=L


7/9

that acceptance has been revoked. Hays Merchandise,

Inc. v. Dewey, 78 Wash.2d 343, 474 P.2d 270, 273

(1970) (sales of part of goods to third parties).

Here Yazoo indicated to Daniels that it would accept fu-

ture shipments and continued, even to the time of trial,

to attempt to sell the bags and frames. Under these cir-

cumstances, it cannot be said that Yazoo effectively re-

voked acceptance.

[3] Yazoo also failed to comply with the notice require-

ments of revocation of acceptance. The official com-

ment to section 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code

states that the content of the notice required to be given

a seller is governed by considerations of good faith,

prevention of surprise, and reasonable adjustment. More

will generally be necessary than the mere notification of

breach ... In Solar Kinetics Corp. v. Ryerson, Inc., 488

F.Supp. 1237, 1247 (D.Conn.1980), the court, review-

ing the statute and comment, stated that the

notice of revocation should inform the seller that the

buyer has revoked, identify the particular goods as to

which he has revoked and set forth the nature of the

non-conformity since such notice would corroborate

the buyer's good faith and give the seller an opportun-

ity to make a substitute performance to maintain

goodwill or to avoid litigation.

In Solar Kinetics the court concluded that the buyer's

notification to the seller that the goods were

unsatisfactory was insufficient. See also Delhomme,

735 F.2d 177, 181 n. 5 (notice must adequately convey

buyer's intent to revoke acceptance). Until the letter

from Yazoo's counsel of June 3, 1983, Yazoo's com-

ments regarding the products consisted of vague allega-

tions of shoddy merchandise. Yazoo attempts to ex-

cuse its lack of specificity by faulting Daniels' failure to

inquire. The court is of the opinion that such inquiry

was not necessary*210 when Yazoo's complaints were

accompanied by projections of future sales. Daniels ap-

parently did respond to Yazoo's return of the first bag

by asserting that it was damaged by abuse rather than

defective material. Daniels did not respond and in fact

denies receipt of the other bags which Kerr claims to

have returned. It must be noted, however, that Kerr nev-

er objected to Daniels' conclusion of abuse regarding

the first bag or to its failure to respond after he sent the

other bags. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that

Yazoo's acceptance of the products was not revoked.

[4] The amount of damages to which plaintiff is entitled

is governed by Miss.Code Ann. 75-2-709 (1972)

which is set out above. At trial, plaintiff established that

the bags and frames were specially designed and manu-

factured for Yazoo and cannot be used for any other

purpose and that the raw materials have no other use

and cannot be resold. Plaintiff computed its damages for

bags and frames in different stages of production

without challenge by defendant. Plaintiff's computa-

tions, which include materials cost, labor and overhead,

selling and administrative expense and profit relating to

manufacture of the bags and frames, and incidentaldamages, are as follows:

Bags, completed:

6,953 bags @ $12.05 83,783.65

Bags, various stages of production11

2,220 units @ $10.68 23,709.60

Bags, raw material

2,459 units @ $7.50 18,442.50

Frames, completed

764 units @ $.488 3,728.32

Frames, in process

Page 6



http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984129085&ReferencePosition=181http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984129085&ReferencePosition=181http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984129085&ReferencePosition=181http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984129085&ReferencePosition=181http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984129085&ReferencePosition=181http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-709&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984129085&ReferencePosition=181http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984129085&ReferencePosition=181http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984129085&ReferencePosition=181http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1980118821&ReferencePosition=1247http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-608&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970132683&ReferencePosition=273


8/9

5,270 Units @ $4.26 22,450.02

Incidental Damages 2,379.68

TOTAL $154,493.95

FN11. Rogers testified that he estimated that

the bags in various stages of production were

70% completed. Roger's estimate was not chal-

lenged by defendant.

[5] Daniels also contends that it is entitled to attorney

fees pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. 11-53-81

(Supp.1985) which provides in part:

When any person fails to pay an open account with-

in thirty (30) days after receipt of written demand

therefor correctly setting forth the amount owed andan itemized statement of the account in support there-

of, that person shall be liable for reasonable attorney's

fees to be set by the judge for the prosecution and col-

lection of such claim when judgment on the claim is

rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

Daniels is not entitled to attorney fees under this section

because its claim against Yazoo is based on contract

rather than an open account. See Westinghouse Credit

Corp. v. Moore & McCalib, Inc., 361 So.2d 990, 992

(Miss.1978); Champion Chemical Co. v. Hank, 165 So.

807, 808 (Miss.1936). Accordingly, Daniels' claim for

attorney fees is dismissed.

YAZOO'S CLAIMS

[6][7] Even though Yazoo accepted the goods and did

not revoke acceptance, it can still proceed on its claims

of breach of warranty. See Miss.Code Ann. 75-2-714

(1972). When goods have been accepted, the buyer

must within a reasonable time after he discovers or

should have discovered any breach notify the seller of

breach or be barred from any remedy. Miss.Code Ann. 75-2-607(3)(a) (1972). The burden is on the buyer to

establish any breach with respect to goods accepted.

Miss.Code Ann. 75-2-607(4) (1972). Here Yazoo has

satisfied its burden of establishing grounds for breach

by stipulation of the parties that [t]he polyethelene

sheeting out of which the bag chutes were constructed

by Daniels was defective causing the chutes to become

brittle and crack. Pre-Trial Order, p. 8.

[8] Daniels contends that Yazoo's action for breach of

warranties is foreclosed by failure to give adequate no-

tice of the breach. Yazoo argues that its references to

shoddy merchandise and its sending defective bags to

Daniels satisfied the notice requirements of section

75-2-607. Yazoo*211 relies on comment 4 to section

2-607 of the Uniform Commercial Code which states in

part: The content of the notification need merely be

sufficient to let the seller know that the transaction is

still troublesome and must be watched. In Eastern Air-

lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 532 F.2d 957,

976 (5th Cir.1976), the Fifth Circuit addressed the no-

tice requirements ofsection 2-607:

However, the fact that the Code has eliminated the

technical rigors of the notice requirement under the

Uniform Sales Act does not require the conclusion

that any expression of discontent by a buyer always

satisfies section 2-607. As Comment 4 indicates, a

buyer's conduct under section 2-607 must satisfy the

Code's standard of commercial good faith. Thus,while the buyer must inform the seller that the trans-

action is still troublesome, Comment 4 also requires

that the notification be such as informs the seller that

the transaction is claimed to involve a breach, and

thus opens the way for normal settlement through ne-

gotiation.

Kerr's notification to Daniels consisted solely of several

vague references to problems with the product, the re-

turn of, at most, three bags and a warranty claim of

$64.40. At the same time, he consistently told Daniels

that he anticipated taking delivery of all bags andframes in the future when problems relating to the eco-

nomy, government regulations and Yazoo's inventory

were resolved. Therefore, while Yazoo did notify

Daniels of the defect in the bags, Yazoo did not inform

Daniels that the condition of the products rose to the

level of a breach. Of course, notice under section

Page 7



http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS11-53-81&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS11-53-81&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978137446&ReferencePosition=992http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978137446&ReferencePosition=992http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978137446&ReferencePosition=992http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978137446&ReferencePosition=992http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=734&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1936109585&ReferencePosition=808http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=734&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1936109585&ReferencePosition=808http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=734&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1936109585&ReferencePosition=808http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-714&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=734&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1936109585&ReferencePosition=808http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=734&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1936109585&ReferencePosition=808http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=734&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1936109585&ReferencePosition=808http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978137446&ReferencePosition=992http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978137446&ReferencePosition=992http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978137446&ReferencePosition=992http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978137446&ReferencePosition=992http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS11-53-81&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS11-53-81&FindType=L


9/9

2-607 need not be a specific claim for damages or an as-

sertion of legal rights. Eastern, 532 F.2d at 976. Here,

however, Daniels had no reason even to suspect that

Yazoo considered the contract to be breached. In fact, it

was not until initiation of this litigation that Daniels

learned of the magnitude of the problem. Such conduct

on the part of Yazoo can hardly be viewed as notifica-

tion of breach.FN12

See Eastern, 532 F.2d at 978

(buyer's conduct, taken as whole, must constitute timely

notice of claim of breach). Accordingly, this court is of

the opinion that Yazoo's counterclaim should be dis-

missed. A separate judgment shall be entered according

to the local rules.

FN12. One of the goals of Article 2 of the Uni-

form Commercial Code, and particularly of thenotice provision of 2-607, is to encourage

compromise and promote good faith in com-

mercial relations. See Uniform Commercial

Code 2-607 (Comment 4); Eastern, 532 F.2d

at 972. That compliance with the notice re-

quirements would have facilitated compromise

and settlement in this case is clear as the de-

fective chutes could have been repaired for less

than $1.50 each. Yazoo's failure to give notice

instead led to this suit.

S.D.Miss.,1986.C.R. Daniels, Inc. v. Yazoo Mfg. Co., Inc.


END OF DOCUMENT

Page 8



http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=978http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=978http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=972http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=972http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=972http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=972http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=972http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=972http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1002112&DocName=ULUCCS2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=978http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=978http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976145847&ReferencePosition=976http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000933&DocName=MSSTS75-2-607&FindType=L