Title: STEINMETZ v ROBERTUS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-117
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 1981

No. 81-117 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 RUBEN C. STEINMETZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, -VS- RANDY ROBERTUS and DAVID ROBERTUS, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull and Jones, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Thomas L. Bradley, Laurel, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 27, 1981 7 - ; 19BI Decided :I, :_ _, Filed: EC 1 - 1981 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. I n an a c t i o n f o r t h e purchase p r i c e of an i r r i g a t i o n pump, p l a i n t i f f appeals an unfavorable judgment of t h e c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury, i n t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County. P l a i n t i f f claims an acceptance of t h e pump on t h e p a r t of t h e defendants with a consequent obliga- t i o n t o pay t h e purchase p r i c e . Defendants claim t h e pump was improperly i n s t a l l e d and subsequently damaged, and they have refused t o pay f o r t h e pump. P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s t h e following i s s u e s f o r review: 1) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o make f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law with regard t o acceptance, r e j e c t i o n , and revocation of acceptance under t h e Uniform Commercial Code. 2 ) Whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t ( p a r t i c u l a r l y finding of f a c t no. 3 ) , conclusions of law and judgment. W e affirm t h e D i s t r i c t Court, holding (1) t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law show t h a t t h e defendants d i d n o t accept t h e pump a s acceptance i s defined i n the Uniform Commercial Code, and ( 2 ) t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court's f i n d i n g s of f a c t . P l a i n t i f f i s a salesman of farm seed and i r r i g a t i o n products i n J o l i e t , Montana. Defendants own and run a farm i n Carbon County. Between January and A p r i l of 1977, p l a i n t i f f , defendants, and Roy Bucklin, discussed t h e proposed i n s t a l l a t i o n of an i r r i g a t i o n system on defendants' land. Roy Bucklin was t h e p r e s i d e n t of Pipe and Pump Supply of Greybull, Wyoming, which supplied t h e i r r i g a t i o n systems t o p l a i n t i f f salesman. Two b i d s w e r e submitted and r e j e c t e d . Defendants paid $2,000 on A p r i l 25, 1977. O n May 1, 1977, p l a i n t i f f and defendants made an o r a l agreement f o r t h e s a l e t o defendants of an i r r i g a t i o n system f o r the p r i c e of $19,829, which covered t h e p r i c e of t h e system less i n s t a l l a t i o n charges and v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e p r i c e of t h e pump. Both p a r t i e s agreed t h a t the p l a i n t i f f had the o b l i g a t i o n t o i n s t a l l and test t h e i r r i g a t i o n system. Defendants had requested a Western Land Roller pump which was unavailable. P l a i n t i f f s u b s t i t u t e d a Fairbanks Morse pump, which, according t o p l a i n t i f f was designed f o r t h e type of wheel row i r r i g a t i o n system ordered by defendants. Whether defendants agreed t o t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n p r i o r t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ordering t h e Fairbanks Morse pump i s disputed. The horsepower of t h e s u b s t i t u t e d pump was lower, t h e p r i c e higher, than t h a t of t h e pump i n i t i a l l y requested. Because the Fairbanks Morse pump would n o t be received u n t i l some days a f t e r t h e wheel rows themselves w e r e i n s t a l l e d , and because, i n t h a t drought year, e a r l y i r r i g a t i o n was e s s e n t i a l , p l a i n t i f f supplied defendants with a temporary tractor-run pump. The main l i n e and wheel rows w e r e completely i n s t a l l e d by May 1 0 , 1977. The tractor-run power-take-off pump (PTO) was i n s t a l l e d approximately May 1 4 , 1977, and functioned properly, supplying s u f f i c i e n t water. O n May 19, 1977, defendants paid p l a i n t i f f an a d d i t i o n a l $13,384.00, which covered the purchase p r i c e of everything b u t t h e pump and i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n . The i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e pump required t h e digging of a sump excavation f o r water which would supply the pump through a 4'x8'x8' metal-walled pipe o r sump. M r . Bucklin s p e c i f i e d the l o c a t i o n and dimensions of t h e excavation when he and the p l a i n t i f f v i s i t e d defendants' farm i n mid-May. ~ u c k l i n a l s o designed t h e metal-walled sump. The excavation f o r t h e sump was dug by Adams Construction t h e day a f t e r t h e v i s i t of Bucklin and Steinmetz. Neither Bucklin nor Steinmetz w a s p r e s e n t t o supervise t h e excavating. The metal sump a r r i v e d and was i n s t a l l e d approximately two weeks l a t e r . Before i n s t a l l a t i o n , t h e sump excavation w a s re-dug, because of cave-ins. A f t e r t h e sump was i n s t a l l e d , t h e pump w a s attached t o the sump. Because t h e pump's column was too long t o f i t down i n t o t h e sump, t h e pump was r a i s e d by n a i l i n g r a i l r o a d ties together, chaining them t o t h e sump, and b o l t i n g t h e pump t o t h e top tie. Bucklin t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t a t t a c h a screen t o the pump, t h a t such a screen was o p t i o n a l , and t h a t t h e sump was screened. P l a i n t i f f , Bucklin, and a couple of helpers supervised t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n which took a l l of t h e day of June 5, 1977. Because e l e c t r i c i t y had not y e t been extended t o the system, p l a i n t i f f , Bucklin, and helpers departed before the pump was turned on, a s d i d p l a i n t i f f t h e following day when t h e wiring was n o t completed by nearly noon. The water i n t h e sump was " d i r t y . . . mucky looking," according t o defendants, and when they turned t h e pump on, t h e pump r a n a few minutes, then q u i t . N o water ever came o u t of the pump. A r e l a t i v e "probed around i n the bottom of t h e sump and found it was f u l l of mud and rock," That evening defendant c a l l e d p l a i n t i f f , complaining t h a t t h e pump d i d n o t work. The p l a i n t i f f responded t h a t he would t r y t o come o u t t h e following morning. Defendants h i r e d another party, who cleaned t h e sump t h e next day, b u t t h e pump f a i l e d t o pump any water. P l a i n t i f f was unable t o come o u t t h a t day, and when defendant c a l l e d him t h a t evening, a heated conversation ensued i n which, according t o p l a i n t i f f , defendant Randy Robertus threatened h i s l i f e . Defendant denies he made t h e t h r e a t b u t agrees t h a t he became q u i t e angry, and demanded t h a t p l a i n t i f f c a l l Bucklin so t h e matter could be s e t t l e d t h a t night. That same evening, p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d , Bucklin advised p l a i n t i f f t o s t a y o u t of t h e matter and away from t h e Robertus farm. Bucklin then c a l l e d defendant Randy Robertus, and assured him he would come o u t and check t h e pump. I n f a c t , M r . Bucklin removed t h e pump, which he t e s t i f i e d was choked with "pieces of corn s t a l k s , sand and g r a v e l , " which could damage t h e pump i f l e f t i n it f o r any length of t i m e . Bucklin cleaned t h e pump and h i s h i r e d man returned it i n s e v e r a l days. Bucklin t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e pump was undamaged, b u t admits t h a t t h i s t i m e he d i d i n s t a l l a screen i n t h e pump. The h i r e d man, James Jones, t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he i n s t a l l e d t h e pump a f t e r Bucklin cleaned it, it worked " f o r a s h o r t time u n t i l it sucked a l l t h e water out" of t h e sump. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he returned a f t e r t h e 4th of J u l y t o pick up t h e P T O pump, t h e defendants had supplied more water from an i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h and Randy Robertus made no complaint, b u t i n d i c a t e d he was pleased with t h e e l e c t r i c a l pump ( t h e Fairbanks Morse). Both Bucklin and p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was no f u r t h e r complaint about t h e working of the pump u n t i l October, well a f t e r t h e end of t h e i r r i g a t i n g season, when defendants' f a t h e r telephoned p l a i n t i f f and demanded t h a t p l a i n t i f f take back t h e pump because it d i d n o t work properly. P l a i n t i f f presented s i x witnesses, a l l of whom t e s t i f i e d t o "driving by" t h e Robertus farm and seeing t h e wheel rows i r r i g a t i n g t h e f i e l d of barley. Defendants deny t h a t they t o l d M r . Jones t h e system "pleased" them; i n f a c t , they t e s t i f i e d t h a t on a t least t h r e e occasions, they c a l l e d Bucklin, complaining t o h i s wife o r s e c r e t a r y t h a t t h e pump w a s n o t functioning properly. Bucklin never responded t o t h e i r complaints. Defendants t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o r almost two weeks, they t r i e d t o make t h e pump run r i g h t , switching water from one wheel row t o t h e o t h e r , then t o both, then moving t h e wheel rows and t r y i n g again. They claim t o have run t h e pump 24 hours a day t o no a v a i l ; i t s i n e f f i c i e n t operation f a i l e d t o i r r i g a t e t h e f i e l d s s u f f i c i e n t l y , and they s u f f e r e d a severe crop l o s s i n t h e f i e l d s , which produced only 20 bushels per a c r e of barley i n s t e a d of t h e a n t i c i p a t e d 80 bushels. Their testimony was corroborated by a neighbor who t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e pump never worked properly. Defendants replaced t h e Fairbanks Morse pump i n s p r i n g of 1978 a t a c o s t of approximately $4,000.00. A f t e r harvest, i n October of 1977, t h e defendantst f a t h e r contacted p l a i n t i f f and t o l d him t o come and g e t t h e pump -- it d i d n ' t work, and defendants d i d n o t intend t o pay f o r it. P l a i n t i f f refused t o accept t h e pump and demanded f u l l payment f o r t h e pump and i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s , a t o t a l of $4,865.00. The o r i g i n a l a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e defendants was i n s t i t u t e d by Pipe and Pump Supply. Defendants denied t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e complaint and a l l e g e d t h a t Pipe and Pump Supply was a Wyoming corporation without a c e r t i f i c a t e of a u t h o r i t y t o do business i n Montana and had no standing t o sue. Defendants counterclaimed a g a i n s t Ruben Steinmetz requesting t h a t p l a i n t i f f take nothing by t h e i r a c t i o n and seeking damages i n t h e amount of $6,000.00. Subsequently, third-party defendant Steinmetz counterclaimed a g a i n s t defendants Robertus. Defendants Robertus moved f o r dismissal of t h e complaint of Pipe and Pump Supply and t h e counterclaim by Steinmetz. The motion w a s granted by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on September 5, 1979, and, i n a Nunc Pro Tunc order dated September 1 4 , 1979, --- t h e c o u r t ordered t h a t t h e motions t o dismiss be granted without prejudice. Steinmetz f i l e d an amended complaint a g a i n s t defendants Robertus on October 12, 1979, a l l e g i n g t h e sale of a wheel row i r r i g a t i o n system a t an agreed upon p r i c e of $20,249.00 and defendants' f a i l u r e t o pay t h e balance of $4,865.00, and requesting judgment i n t h e amount of t h e balance due and c o s t s . Defendants denied a l l a l l e g a t i o n s . T r i a l was had on December 11, 1980. On December 15, 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of l a w and entered judgment f o r the defendants, dismissing p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint and awarding c o s t s t o t h e defendants. P l a i n t i f f appeals. The D i s t r i c t Court's findings of f a c t and conclusions of law a r e as follows: "FINDINGS OF FACT "1. That t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e defendants on April 25, 1977, entered i n t o an agreement whereby p l a i n t i f f was t o provide and i n s t a l l a wheel r o l l i r r i g a t i o n system, together with a pump, f o r t h e p r i c e of $20,249.00, which consisted of t h e s u m of $13,384.00 f o r t h e wheel r o l l s p r i n k l e r and $4,365.00 f o r t h e pump; t h a t defendants have paid $13,365.00 f o r t h e wheel r o l l system. [Defendants made a $2,000.00 down payment on t h e wheel r o l l system i n A p r i l , and paid an a d d i t i o n a l $13,384.00 i n May. The t o t a l p r i c e of t h e wheel r o l l system was $15,384.00. The c o s t of t h e wheel r o l l s , p l u s t h e unpaid amount -- $4,365.00 f o r t h e pump and $500.00 f o r i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n -- brought t h e c o n t r a c t amount t o $20,249.00.1 "2. That t h e wheel r o l l i r r i g a t i o n system was t o be i n s t a l l e d and working upon defen- d a n t s ' farm i n Carbon County, Montana, with- i n t e n (10) days. " 3 . That t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o properly i n s t a l l s a i d pump i n t h a t t h e pump was in- s t a l l e d i n a sump t h a t was f i l l e d with mud and t r a s h ; t h a t no screen was placed over t h e i n t a k e of s a i d pump; t h a t t h e pump drew i n mud and t r a s h and was damaged; t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o t e s t s a i d pump o r irri- g a t i o n system; t h a t a s a consequence t h e pump f a i l e d t o work and f a i l e d t o adequately i r r i g a t e t h e lands of the defendants a s c a l l e d f o r i n t h e agreement. " 4 . That t h e defendants were forced t o remove t h e pump of t h e p l a i n t i f f and subsequently had t o purchase a new pump from another sup- p l i e r . "5. That defendants o f f e r e d t o r e t u r n t h e pump t o t h e p l a i n t i f f b u t t h a t p l a i n t i f f re- fused t o accept t h e same and refused t o make t h e wheel r o l l system operable. "From t h e foregoing Facts, t h e Court draws t h e following: "CONCLUSIONS O F L A W "1. That t h e p l a i n t i f f has f a i l e d t o provide an operable pump a s required under h i s agree- ment with t h e defendants. "2. That t h e defendants have o f f e r e d t o r e t u r n p l a i n t i f f ' s pump, b u t p l a i n t i f f r e f u s e s t o accept t h e same. "3. That p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint should be d i s - missed and judgment entered i n favor of t h e defendants. " P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t because n e i t h e r t h e defendants' answer denying p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n s nor t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of l a w s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed the questions of acceptance, r e j e c t i o n , and revocation a s s e t f o r t h i n Montana's Uniform Commercial Code, t h i s Court must r e v e r s e and remand with o r d e r s t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o e n t e r judgment i n favor of t h e p l a i n t i f f . P l a i n t i f f c i t e s Ballantyne v. The Anaconda Company (1978), 574 P.2d 582, 175 Mont. 406, a s r e q u i r i n g f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law i n support of a judgment. While t h e Court i n t h a t case d i d describe t h e purpose and function of a w r i t t e n opinion, t h e Court d i r e c t e d the case be remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court which was d i r e c t e d t o set f o r t h t h e reason f o r i t s order granting p l a i n t i f f ' s new t r i a l i n accordance with Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., which s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e s t h a t a c o u r t granting new t r i a l s h a l l s p e c i f y the grounds with s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i t y a s t o a p p r i s e the p a r t i e s and t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e r a t i o n a l e underlying t h e r u l i n g . Certainly t h i s Court would much p r e f e r a more p r e c i s e and d e t a i l e d statement of findings of f a c t and conclusions of law than those prepared by t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n deciding t h i s a c t i o n . W e approve t h e quotation i n Ballantyne from t h e comment of Chief J u s t i c e Hughes: " [ A ] well-stated opinion i s of g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a s a c h a r t of t h e reasoning followed by t h e t r i a l judge i n reaching a decision." Ballantyne v. Anaconda Co, 175 Mont. a t 409, 574 P.2d a t 584. A s set f o r t h i n Rule 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., t h e applicable standard f o r our review of f i n d i n g s of f a c t s is: "Findings of f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e unless c l e a r l y erroneous, and due regard s h a l l be given t o the opportunity of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses." W e cannot say t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n t h i s case were c l e a r l y erroneous, i n l i g h t of the evidence presented and t h e consistency of t h e f i n d i n g s with t h e U C C r s provisions governing r e j e c t i o n of non-conforming goods. Montana UCC s t a t e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : "30-2-601. . . . [I] f t h e goods o r t h e tender of d e l i v e r y f a i l i n any r e s p e c t t o conform t o t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e buyer may: " ( a ) r e j e c t t h e whole. . . "30-2-602. (1) Rejection of goods must be with- i n a reasonable time a f t e r t h e i r d e l i v e r y o r tender. It i s i n e f f e c t i v e unless the buyer seasonably n o t i f i e s the seller. " 30-2-606. (1) Acceptance of goods occurs when t h e buyer: " ( a ) a f t e r a reasonable opportunity t o i n s p e c t t h e goods s i g n i f i e s t o t h e s e l l e r t h a t t h e goods a r e conforming o r t h a t he w i l l take o r r e t a i n them i n s p i t e of t h e i r noncomformity; o r " (b) f a i l s t o make an e f f e c t i v e r e j e c t i o n (sub- s e c t i o n (1) of 30-2-602), b u t such acceptance does n o t occur u n t i l the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity t o i n s p e c t them; o r " (c) does any a c t i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h e s e l l e r ' s ownership; b u t i f such a c t is wrongful as a g a i n s t t h e s e l l e r it i s an acceptance only i f r a t i f i e d by him." Section 30-2-601 et. seq., MCA. - - There was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e following conclusions: ( a ) The goods were non-conforming o r were improperly delivered. The p a r t i e s a r e agreed t h a t it was p a r t of t h e agreement, and a matter of common p r a c t i c e i n t h e i r r i g a t i o n equipment t r a d e , f o r t h e seller t o supervise t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of an i r r i g a t i o n system and test i t s performance. Here, both p l a i n t i f f and h i s s u p p l i e r were p r e s e n t t h e day t h e pump was i n s t a l l e d and y e t t h e r e were a number of questionable occurrences. The s c r e e n l e s s pump drew i n s u f f i c i e n t d e b r i s t o clog it before any_ water was pumped t o t h e wheel rows. Both Bucklin and p l a i n t i f f Steinmetz l e f t t h e farm before t h e i r r i g a t i o n pump was t e s t e d . Neither Bucklin nor p l a i n t i f f returned t o the farm t o t e s t t h e system a f t e r its "cure" and a s c e r t a i n t h a t it was functioning properly; t h e i r observations were limited t o what they could see "driving by" t h e farm. (b) There was a f a i l u r e t o cure t h e d e f e c t s of t h e pump. Defendants contacted p l a i n t i f f e a r l y and emphatically, t h e day a f t e r t h e pump's i n s t a l l a t i o n , c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it d i d n o t work. They made a number of unsuccessful attempts a f t e r t h e attempted "cure" t o c o n t a c t Bucklin, who admittedly was f u l f i l l i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s d u t i e s following t h e harsh exchange between p l a i n t i f f and Randy Robertus, without any response from Bucklin. (c) F i n a l l y and perhaps most importantly, defendants t e n t o twelve days' "use" of the pump i n June o r e a r l y J u l y was i n f a c t a prolonged e f f o r t t o determine why t h e pump f a i l e d t o work and t o cure the d e f e c t themselves i n t h e absence of any response by the p l a i n t i f f ( o r Bucklin) t o defendants' complaints. A s such, it was never an a c t i n c o n s i s t e n t with s e l l e r ' s ownership under Section 30-2-606(1)(c), MCA, b u t r a t h e r a reasonable and timely i n s p e c t i o n of t h e pump, under Section 30-2-606(1) ( b ) , MCA, t o determine i f it was o r could be i n conformity with t h e agreement. The Montana Power records i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e pump was n o t used f o r " s e v e r a l months," a s p l a i n t i f f charges, b u t f o r no more than two weeks t o t a l . Defendants t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o r nearly t h a t length of time, they t r i e d , without success, every conceivable v a r i a t i o n of rigging up t h e wheel r o l l s and changing t h e i r l o c a t i o n t o t r y t o make t h e pump work a s p l a i n t i f f had assured them it would work. Montana's Uniform Commercial Code provides ". . . acceptance does n o t occur u n t i l the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity t o i n s p e c t [ t h e goods] . " Section 30-2-606 (1) (b) , MCA. When t h e goods i n question can only be inspected by p u t t i n g them t o t h e use f o r which they a r e intended, a reasonable t i m e f o r inspection n a t u r a l l y w i l l be longer than i f t h e goods a r e items whose conformity o r nonconformity can be determined simply by looking a t them. A c o u r t must be r e a l i s t i c i n appraising t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of a buyer's opportunity t o i n s p e c t , and should n o t hold t h a t t h e buyer has accepted where because of t h e t e c h n i c a l o r complex nature of t h e goods t h e buyer cannot determine whether thay a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y u n t i l he a c t u a l l y makes use of them. 2 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, (2d ed. 1971) ( ~ u p p . 1981), 191-192. When a buyer attempts t o cooperate w i t h t h e seller, and "work t h e bugs o u t " of a complex p i e c e of machinery by b r i e f l y p u t t i n g t h e machinery t o i t s intended use, he should n o t be a c t i n g a t h i s p e r i l . Courts should be h e s i t a n t t o f i n d t h a t such a c t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e seller's ownership. See White and Summers, Uniform Commercial Code (2d ed. 1980), 300. H e r e , defendants w e r e assured t h a t t h e pump i n q u e s t i o n was designed t o supply two t o t h r e e wheel rows with adequate water. Defendants' use of t h e pump can be considered t h e "period of experimentation" recognized i n C a r l Beasley Ford, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1973), 361 F.Supp. 325, a f f ' d . - i n unpub. =., (3rd C i r . ) , 493 F.2d 1400. I t i s g e n e r a l l y held t h a t m e r e n o t i f i c a t i o n of poor q u a l i t y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e r e j e c t i o n under t h e Uniform Commercial Code. See Southeastern S t e e l v. Burton Block & Concrete (1979), 273 S.C. 634, 258 S.E.2d 888, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Here w e f i n d more than m e r e n o t i f i c a - t i o n . Defendant Randy Robertus t w i c e contacted p l a i n t i f f before t h e attempted "cure" of t h e pump's d e f e c t s ; defendants t h r e e t i m e s contacted Roy Bucklin, who was a c t i n g on p l a i n t i f f ' s b e h a l f , a f t e r t h e i n e f f e c t u a l "cure" of those d e f e c t s ; and defendants, who had paid t h e t o t a l p r i c e of t h e wheel r o l l system w i t h i n days of i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n , refused t o pay any p a r t of t h e pump purchase p r i c e over a period of s e v e r a l months. W e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law a r e n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h e Montana UCC d e s p i t e t h a t c o u r t ' s r e g r e t t a b l e f a i l u r e t o develop a c l e a r statement of t h e f a c t s a s they r e l a t e t o a p p l i c a b l e Montana law on s a l e s . Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s case, t h e r e was no acceptance by t h e defendants, no a c t u a l use i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h e ownership of t h e p l a i n t i f f , and no delay i n o f f e r i n g a r e t u r n of non-conforming goods s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o j u s t i f y a conclusion t h a t defendants had accepted t h e pump. I1 P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting t h e D i s t r i c t Court's f i n d i n g s of f a c t . W e have already discussed much of t h e r e l e v a n t evidence. This Court w i l l uphold f i n d i n g s based on c o n f l i c t i n g evidence when t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence on the whole record supporting such findings. The evidence must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o the p r e v a i l i n g party. Weston v. Kuntz (1981), Mont. , P.2d , 38 St.Rep. 1691, 1693; Toeckes v. Baker (1980), Mont. , 611 P.2d 609, 611, 37 St.Rep. 948, 950; Hagfelt v. Mahaffey (1978), 176 Mont. There i s ample evidence of an agreement t h a t p l a i n t i f f would supply a pump capable of providing two, perhaps t h r e e , wheel rows with adequate water, and t h a t p l a i n t i f f would supervise t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n and t e s t i n g of t h e system once it w a s i n s t a l l e d . There i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t t h e system d i d n o t operate a t a l l i n i t i a l l y , and t h a t following defendants' complaints and nonpayment f o r t h e pump and i n s t a l l a t i o n , p l a i n t i f f ' s s u p p l i e r , a t p l a i n t i f f ' s r e q u e s t , attempted t o f i x t h e pump. Defendants have presented s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t t h e pump never functioned properly and was never made e f f e c t i v e d e s p i t e defendants' continued p r o t e s t s t o p l a i n t i f f ' s s u p p l i e r who was a c t i n g a s p l a i n t i f f ' s middleman a f t e r t h e June 17th q u a r r e l between p l a i n t i f f and defendant Randy Robertus. Defendants t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s a r e s u l t of t h e pump's f a i l u r e , a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of t h e barley crop was l o s t , and defendants purchased a new pump t h e following spring. W e f i n d t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . Affirmed. W e Concur: s - . , 4 d q % 4 Chief J u s t i c e