ILNews

Appeals court orders more proceedings in pulley lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding the trial court shouldn’t have granted summary judgment in favor of a distributor on a buyer’s claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability regarding pulleys provided by the distributor, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to take another look at the issue.

Gared Holdings LLC decided to buy pulleys for basketball goals it manufactures from Best Bolt Products Inc. after it had some issues with its current supplier of the pulleys and learned the price of the pulleys would increase. Best Bolt is a distributor of bolts, screws and miscellaneous hardware products, but had never sold pulleys. Gared did not specify to Best Bolt that the pulleys need to have lubricated bushing in order to reduce friction. Best Bolt sourced the pulleys from a manufacturer in China, which did not include the lubricated bushing.

After purchasing two orders of pulleys from Best Bolt, Gared discovered that the pulleys used on its basketball goals were failing sooner than they should. That’s when the company learned the pulleys did not have the lubricated bushing.

It sued Best Bolt alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Best Bolt countersued seeking payment on another order of pulleys and an order of clevis pins that Gared refused to accept.

The trial court ruled in favor of Best Bolt on Gared’s claims and on its counterclaim.

In Gared Holdings, LLC v. Best Bolt Products, Inc., 49A02-1210-PL-811, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, agreeing with the trial court that the parties’ contract did not require Best Bolt to replicate the pulley samples that Gared provided, which contained lubricated bushing. Gared had indicated to Best Bolt that it was unhappy with some of the design of the previous pulleys.

The COA also affirmed summary judgment on the breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The evidence showed that Gared was aware the pulleys should have a lubricated bushing and simply assumed that Best Bolt would include one in its design.

But on the issue of warranty of merchantability, the judges reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact. The trial court concluded that it didn’t apply to Best Bolt because it didn’t make the pulleys; that it was a distributor; and had made only one sale.

“We conclude that the fact that Best Bolt was not a manufacturer is not relevant to the issue of whether it was a merchant. Also, the undisputed evidence shows that Best Bolt made two sales of pulleys and was willing to continue selling pulleys. We conclude that these facts indicate that Best Bolt is a merchant with a relatively new product rather than a non-merchant seller making an isolated sale,” Judge Terry Crone wrote.

On remand, the trial court may also have to reconsider its ruling on Best Bolt’s counterclaim, depending on how it rules on the merchantability issue.

Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote a concurring opinion in which she dissented regarding the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim.

“Gared gave Best Bolt a sample pulley, and although Gared did not want an exact replica of that pulley because they were having quality issues with the cable separating and jamming between parts of the pulley, there were no quality issues with the lubricated bushing and Best Bolt, offering to procure a suitable replacement, held itself out to have the ability to judge what would be suitable,” she wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT