Sales and Leases | 49
from farmers to the auction patrons. In addition, a farmer employing the auctioneer would be a merchant with respect to the livestock, even if the farmer would not qualify for that status on his own. In employing the auctioneer, the farmer would have an agent who, by her occupation, held herself out as having peculiar expertise in the livestock. [ See Bradford v. N.W. Ala. Livestock Ass’n , 379 So.2d 609 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. 1980).] (2) A dealer purchased and sold Christmas trees from November 1 to December 25 of each year. As a regular seasonal seller of Christmas trees, the dealer was a merchant with respect to the Christmas trees. Though the dealer did not constantly deal in Christmas trees, he did so regularly, continuously, and systematically enough to be deemed a merchant with respect to them. [ See 2 Anderson U.C.C. § 2-104:41 (3d. ed.), Westlaw (database updated Dec. 2020) (citing Traynor v. Walters , 342 F.Supp. 455 (M.D. Pa. 1972).] c. Relevance of the Distinction between Merchants Concerning the Practices Involved and Merchants with Respect to Goods of the Kind It is oftentimes important to distinguish between merchants concerning the practices involved and merchants with respect to goods of the kind. Many rules in Article 2 apply to merchants generally, without regard to the distinction. For instance, the implied duty of good faith applies to all merchants. Some rules, however, apply only to merchants with respect to goods of the kind. For instance, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose bind only merchants with respect to goods of the kind. Of course, normally, a merchant with respect to goods of the kind will also be a merchant with respect to the practices involved, as a merchant with respect to goods of the kind should generally be familiar with the relevant practices. [ See U.C.C. § 2-104, cmt. 2 (1951); 2 Anderson U.C.C. § 2-104:44 (3d. ed.), Westlaw (database updated Dec. 2020); Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, infra .] d. Providing a Platform for the Sale of Goods Courts have generally held that one does not become a merchant with respect to goods of the kind merely by providing a platform for the sale of the goods. [ See, e.g., McDonald v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. , 219 F.Supp.3d 533 (D. Md. 2016).] Example : A consumer bought cell-phone batteries from a manufacturer by placing an order on amazon.com. Shortly after the consumer started using the batteries, the batteries exploded, injuring him. The consumer sued both the manufacturer and amazon.com for breach of various warranties under UCC Article 2. Either party would be liable only if it were a merchant concerning the batteries. Clearly, the manufacturer was a merchant with respect to the batteries. Amazon was likely a merchant concerning the practices involved,
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker