Sales and Leases | 145
facts, the Fifth Circuit found that the farmer had exercised ownership over the combine. [ See Deere & Co. v. Johnson , 271 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2001).]
b. Effect of Buyer’s Exercise of Ownership of Rightfully Rejected Goods Again, if the buyer exercises ownership over rightfully rejected goods, it is wrongful against the seller. Indeed, it is the same as a wrongful act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership. Accordingly, the seller has remedies here. Namely, the seller may either (1) treat the act as an acceptance of the goods or (2) recover damages. [U.C.C. §§ 2- 602(2)(a), 2-606(1)(c) (1951); 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2-602:2, Westlaw (database updated June 2021).] 5. Obligations of Buyer in Physical Possession of Rightfully Rejected Goods A buyer has a special obligation if (1) before rejection , she takes physical possession of goods that she ultimately rightfully rejects, and (2) she has no security interest in the rejected goods under § 2-711(3). Here, the buyer must, after rejection, hold the goods “with reasonable care at the seller’s disposition for a time sufficient to permit the seller to remove them.” [U.C.C. § 2-602(2)(b) (1951).] So long as the buyer complies with this duty, the risk of loss falls on the seller. [ Clark v. Zaid , 282 A.2d 483, n. 2 (Md. 1971).] Example : A faucet manufacturer contracted to buy a stated number of faucet handles from a distributor. When the faucets arrived, the manufacturer learned that about half of them were so badly scratched that the manufacturer could not use them. The manufacturer rejected the handles, set them aside in its own warehouse, and invited the distributor’s representatives to come sort through the handles and take back the scratched ones. On similar facts, the Fourth Circuit held that the buyer satisfied its obligation to hold the handles with reasonable care at the seller’s disposition for long enough to permit the seller to remove them. [ See T&S Brass and Bronze Works, Inc. v. Pic-Air, Inc. , 790 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1986).] Compare : A retailer contracted to buy a shipment of fireworks from a manufacturer. Shortly after taking delivery of the fireworks, the retailer rejected them. In returning the fireworks, the retailer simply left the fireworks unattended outside at the manufacturer’s headquarters, located in the heart of a busy downtown area. Here, a court could easily find that the retailer did not hold the fireworks with reasonable care at the manufacturer’s disposition. Any number of misfortunes could have befallen the fireworks as they sat outside, unattended, in a busy downtown area. [ See Ford v. Starr Fireworks, Inc. , 874 P.2d 230 (Wyo. 1994).]
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker