ILNews

No cash refund required for defective chest of drawers, COA rules

Marilyn Odendahl
September 30, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that the adage “buyer beware” did not apply, it still found that a customer who discovered a defect in a piece of furniture after purchase was not entitled to a cash refund.

The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court erred in ordering Trisler to reimburse Carter for the purchase price in Tom Trisler d/b/a/ Canal House Antiques v. Clayton L. Carter, 35A02-1302-SC-192.

Carter demanded a refund after he found nails sticking out the back of a chest of drawers he had bought from Canal House Antiques. Trisler offered Carter a store credit instead.

Small Claims Court issued a judgment for Carter in the amount of $170 plus court costs of $92. Trisler appealed, asserting Carter was not entitled to a refund because there was not an expressed or implied warranty requiring the store to return the purchase price.

In considering Trisler’s argument, the Court of Appeals found it relied on caveat emptor, or buyer beware. However, the COA stated the appropriate guide for settling the issue was the Indiana Uniform Commercial Code.

On the basis of the U.C.C., the Court of Appeals ruled Carter did not buy the bureau on the assumption that any defect would be fixed. Carter made no allegation that Trisler prevented him from inspecting the chest of drawers in the store and Carter found the nails only while he was cleaning the piece of furniture.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals held that the U.C.C. does not apply to allow Carter to revoke his acceptance of the chest of drawers and be paid a cash refund.   
 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT