Title: GOODWIN v. THE DURANT BANK & TRUST COMPANY

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

GOODWIN v. THE DURANT BANK & TRUST COMPANY  GOODWIN v. THE DURANT BANK & TRUST COMPANY 1998 OK 3 952 P.2d 41 69 OBJ 258 Case Number: 86764 Decided: 01/15/1998 Mandate Issued: 02/19/1998 Supreme Court of Oklahoma JAMES V. GOODWIN, Appellant, vs. THE DURANT BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a banking corporation, Appellee. [952 P.2d 42] CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION I; APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRYAN COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA; Honorable Farrell M. Hatch, Trial Judge. ¶0 Goodwin sought damages for breach of an express warranty when he discovered that a backhoe which he purchased from the Durant Bank & Trust Company [Bank] was a 1987 unit rather than the 1990 model which had been represented to him. The trial court found that at the time of sale both parties were mutually mistaken about the backhoe's model year and concluded (a) that the Bank breached an express warranty and (b) that Goodwin suffered no consequential damages because of Bank's breach. Goodwin appealed from the trial court's measure of damages. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court's damage award, holding that damages should have been measured by the difference between the value of a 1987 and 1990 backhoe, and remanded the cause. On certiorari previously granted, THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED; THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH TODAY'S PRONOUNCEMENT. Bob E. Savage, Tishomingo, Oklahoma, for the appellant. Joe Stamper of Stamper & Hadley, Antlers, Oklahoma, for the appellee. Lavender, J. ¶1 When applied to the case's facts the Uniform Commercial Code's [Code or U.C.C.] provisions, as adopted in Oklahoma, I PROCEDURAL FACTS AND HISTORY ¶2 After the Durant Bank & Trust Company [Bank or seller] acquired a Case backhoe (model 580K) through foreclosure, ¶3 After a jury-waived trial, the district court found that both parties were mutually mistaken about the backhoe's identity when the equipment was originally sold. The trial court then concluded that although Bank breached an express warranty about the backhoe's model year, buyer suffered no consequential damages because the backhoe was worth its original purchase price. ¶4 The Court of Civil Appeals [COCA] reversed the damage award below, [952 P.2d 43] concluding that the trial court applied the wrong measure of damages. The COCA held that damages should have been measured by the difference between the values of a 1987 and 1990 model backhoe. We granted certiorari to test the correctness of the COCA's legal analysis in reaching its conclusion that damages were available to Buyer. II THE SALES TRANSACTION IN ISSUE IS GOVERNED BY THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE AS ENACTED IN OKLAHOMA ¶5 Assuming, without deciding, that, as contended by Bank, it did properly preserve for review the issue whether it breached an express warranty, we hold that the judgment below on the express warranty issue was correct. The transaction in issue is governed by Art. 2, Uniform Commercial Code, since it is clearly a sale of goods within the Code's contemplation. ¶6 Seller primarily relies on pre-Code case law and the terms of § 1-103 (1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: * * * (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. [Emphasis added.] The Code's definition of express warranty is more inclusive than that found at the common law, encompassing as it does many aspects of the common law's concept of implied warranty by description. ¶7 When the U.C.C. is applicable and a seller's tender of goods fails to conform to the contract, the Code identifies three avenues of recourse for the buyer. See §2-601. ¶8 Assuming that Goodwin timely notified Bank of the non-conformity, the Code specifies how to measure his damages for breach in regard to the accepted goods. See § 2-714. ¶9 The record is inconclusive about the values of the respective models. Hence, the cause is remanded to the district court to make the requisite evidentiary findings and to determine buyer's damages in a manner consistent with today's pronouncement. III GOODWIN IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER HIS APPEAL-RELATED ATTORNEY FEE AND COSTS IF, UPON REMAND, THE TRIAL COURT AWARDS MONEY DAMAGES FOR THE BANK'S BREACH OF WARRANTY ¶10 The prevailing party IV SUMMARY ¶11 Where, as here, the transaction falls within the Uniform Commercial Code's purview and the Code's provisions afford a complete remedial scheme for the issues presented, resort to the common law is unnecessary. Bank's representation of the backhoe's model year (to the buyer) creates an express warranty which was breached with the tender of the non-conforming unit. Once it was decided that a breach of an express warranty (as defined by the Code's provisions) had occurred, it became incumbent upon the trial court to measure the buyer's damages in the manner prescribed by the Code, i.e., by determining the difference in value between a similarly equipped 1987 and 1990 Case 580K backhoe. This it did not do and, hence, the case is remanded to the district court to recompute Goodwin's damages in accordance with § 2-714's terms. Upon certiorari previously granted, the COCA'S opinion is vacated; the district court's judgment is affirmed [ 952 P.2d 45 ] in part and reversed in part; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with today's pronouncement. ¶12 KAUGER, C.J., LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, OPALA and WILSON, JJ., concur. ¶13 SUMMERS, V.C.J., SIMMS and WATT, JJ., dissent. ¶14 HODGES, J., disqualified. FOOT