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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT