Title: Billings v. Joseph Harris Co., Inc.
Citation: 226 S.E.2d 321, 290 N.C. 502
Docket Number: 50
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: July 14, 1976

226 S.E.2d 321 (1976) 290 N.C. 502 Paul BILLINGS v. JOSEPH HARRIS COMPANY, INC. No. 50. Supreme Court of North Carolina. July 14, 1976. *323 McElwee, Hall &amp; McElwee by John E. Hall, North Wilkesboro, and Arnold L. Young, Sparta, for plaintiff. Hudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton &amp; Robinson by Norwood Robinson, George L. *324 Little, Jr., and Steven E. Philo, Winston Salem, for defendant. LAKE, Justice. The plaintiff relies upon our decision in Gore v. Ball, Inc., 279 N.C. 192, 182 S.E.2d 389 (1971). That case is distinguishable from the present case for two reasons. First, there the defendant delivered the wrong kind of seed, whereas, in the present case, the plaintiff admits that he received the exact kind of seed he ordered. Thus, in the present case, there was no violation of the North Carolina Seed Law through false labeling of seed. In the Gore case, we held that a provision in the contract limiting the seller's liability for delivering falsely labeled seed to the purchase price of the seed was contrary to the public policy of this State as declared in the North Carolina Seed Law and was, therefore, invalid. That question is not involved in the present litigation. Second, as we expressly stated in the Gore case, the transaction there having occurred prior to the effective date of the Uniform Commercial Code in North Carolina, the provisions of that Act were not applicable to the Gore case. GS XX-XX-XXX. Here the purchase of seed out of which the present litigation arose occurred after the Uniform Commercial Code took effect in this State. Thus the provisions of the Code do apply to this case. The disclaimer of warranty clause, with which we are presently concerned, provides expressly that the seller makes no warranty of merchantability and no warranty of fitness for purpose and no other warranty except a warranty that the seed conform to the label descriptions required by Federal and State Seed Laws. Thus, it excludes any warranty against the presence in the seed of a disease. The printed order blank further provides that the seller's liability for breach of any warranty (i. e., warranty of conformity to the label description) is limited to the return of the purchase price. This latter provision is the one which we held contrary to the public policy of the State as declared in the North Carolina Seed Law in Gore v. Ball, Inc., supra. It is not involved in this action. The Uniform Commercial Code, which took effect in this State on 30 June 1967, provides in G.S. 25-2-316: This statute is not in conflict with the provision of the North Carolina Seed Law referred to in Gore v. Ball, Inc., supra. It clearly permits a seller of seed, just as a seller of other merchandise, to incorporate in his contract a disclaimer of any warranty of merchantability or of fitness for purpose provided he complies with the conditions stated in subsection (2). In the present case, the disclaimer clause complies with those conditions. In GS 25-2-719 the Uniform Commercial Code provides: In GS 25-2-718, referred to in the above quoted section, the Uniform Commercial Code provides: Since in the present case we do not have any breach by the seller of a warranty of conformity to label, i. e., the type of seed ordered was actually delivered, we express no opinion as to whether, where there has been such a breach, a limitation of the buyer to the recovery of the purchase price is "reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual harm caused by the breach." We note that the official comment to GS 25-2-719 by the committee which drafted the Uniform Commercial Code states: For the reasons hereinabove stated, we find no error in the judgment of the Superior Court prejudicial to the plaintiff, and the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that judgment is, therefore, affirmed. AFFIRMED.