Opinion ID: 789821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal of Central's inventory claims

Text: 52 The Ohio Uniform Commercial Code's provision invoked by Central in support of its inventory claims provides that [u]nder a sale or return [,] unless otherwise agreed[,] ... the option to return extends to the whole or any commercial unit of the goods while in substantially their original condition, but must be exercised seasonably.... Ohio Rev.Code § 1302.40(B)(1). A buyer cannot claim the right to return goods after acting in a manner inconsistent with that right. See Willoway Nurseries v. Curdes, No. 98CA007109, 1999 WL 820784, at  (Ohio Ct.App. Oct. 13, 1999) (unpublished) ([T]he buyer may not convert the goods to his or her own use and then assert that the goods were not accepted.) 53 Central's sale of at least part of the inventory and its failure to exercise its right until seven months after the end of Program Year 2000 were correctly identified by the district court as behavior inconsistent with the exercise of the right to return the inventory. Specifically, there was no way to determine whether the inventory was in substantially [its] original condition because part of the inventory was sold, and a delay of seven months is far from a seasonabl[e] exercise of the right of return. See Ohio Rev.Code § 1302.40(B)(1). Central's claims regarding its Miracle Gro inventory present a closer case, because Central returned a portion of the Miracle Gro inventory in a timely manner. The district court properly found that Central had failed to act seasonably with regard to the Program Year 2000 Miracle-Gro inventory, as opposed to the Miracle Gro inventory for Program Year 1999. Id. We therefore affirm the district court's action in dismissing the majority of Central's inventory claims for the reasons stated by the district court at pages 5-9 of its April 24, 2002 opinion, as well as from the bench on that same date.