Case ID: or-app_53/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      THORNTON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On respondent’s reconsideration filed July 21,
    reconsideration granted; former opinion filed June 29 (52 Or App, 630 P2d 880) adhered to as modified August 24,
    petition for review denied November 24, 1981 (292 Or 109)
    MILLER, Appellant, v. HUBBARD-WRAY CO., INC., Respondent.
    
    (No. 79-210-E-2, CA 18104)
    633 P2d 1
    Douglas P. Cushing and Cushing, Haberlach, Hanson & Black, Medford, for petition.
    No appearance contra.
    ' Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.
    THORNTON, J.
   THORNTON, J.

Defendant Hubbard-Wray, Co., in its Petition for Review, points out that our fact statement is in error in stating that the hay baler sold by defendant to plaintiff was later returned to defendant and that defendant had accepted return of the baler and sold it. The opinion is modified accordingly.

Reconsideration granted; former opinion adhered to as modified.