What You Can Do Under New York Law When You’re Sold Defective Goods

Jonathan Cooper — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:09:41 +0000

In Bimini Boat Sales, Inc. v. Luhrs Corp., plaintiff Bimini, a retail boat dealer, bought a fishing boat from boat manufacturer Luhrs, intending to resell the boat to the general public. Unfortunately for Bimini, after they received the boat from Luhrs, they discovered that the boat had several defects that were serious enough to render it unsaleable, which in legal terms is called “unmerchantable,” or unfit for its particular purpose.

Since the boat was considered “goods” under New York law, Bimini sued to recover under two different provisions of New York’s Uniform Commercial Code. First, Bimini sought to recover damages for Luhrs’ breach of the implied warranties of merchantability [UCC 2-314]; second, Bimini claimed entitlement to damages based upon the boat’s un-fitness for a particular purpose [ UCC 2-315]. Bimini also asserted that it was entitled to consequential damages for harm to their reputation and for loss of business.

In reversing that portion of the Suffolk County trial court’s order that denied plaintiff’s motion seeking judgment as a matter of law, the Appellate Division, Second Department held that plaintiff had proven that the boat was unmerchantable and not fit for resale to the public because it had “fundamental structural deficiencies” and design flaws which required extensive repairs and “design modifications.”

The significance of this decision, in my view, is the last part, however, wherein the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims to recover damages for loss of business and damage to the plaintiff’s business reputation on the grounds the terms of the dealer agreement had expressly barred these claims.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Jury Finds Chemical Companies Not Liable For Environmental Contamination

Jonathan Cooper — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:37:46 +0000

Last month, a California jury dismissed from an environmental contamination lawsuit several companies that were in the chain of manufacture, distribution, and ultimate use of perchloroethylene, finding that there was insufficient evidence that these companies were responsible for the environmental contamination. During the trial, the city of Modesto, California (the plaintiff) contended that these companies were liable for the city’s tainted groundwater and contaminated soil because these chemical manufacturers had wrongfully told several local drycleaners (who were also sued by the city) that they could dispose their perc waste into Modesto’s sewer system without concern that it would contaminate the local environment or water.

Although this verdict was a setback for the City of Modesto, California (who is the plaintiff in the lawsuit), who claimed that these companies had manufactured, sold and used a defective product, and that the defendants’ mishandling and misuse of the defective product had tainted the City’s water supply, the City had previously been awarded well over $21 million in compensatory and punitive damages in their claims against defendants Dow Chemical, PPG and Vulcan Chemical.

Not suprisingly, counsel for Modesto, as well as corporate giants Down Chemical and PPG have indicated that this lawsuit is far from over, as they all intend to appeal.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

New York Business Litigation Attorney | New York Breach of Contract Attorney » defective products

What You Can Do Under New York Law When You’re Sold Defective Goods

Jury Finds Chemical Companies Not Liable For Environmental Contamination