Opinion ID: 2509227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deaver's UCC Claim

Text: Deaver also argues that Auction Block was a buyer under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and therefore subject to rules governing buyers. Fish are goods as defined by the UCC. [27] The undisputed facts also demonstrate that Auction Block held itself out as a knowledgeable dealer in fish sales. For example, Kevin Hogan, president of Auction Block, stated in his affidavit that the company is the Home of the Cyber Fish and allows prospective buyers and sellers of commercially harvested fish to meet in the cyberspace marketplace. Auction Block was therefore a merchant for purposes of the UCC. [28] Because Auction Block was the primary fish buyer in the October 5, 1999 transaction, under the UCC it was also a buyer who buys or contracts to buy goods. [29] It was therefore subject to UCC rules governing buyers. The UCC provides that acceptance of goods occurs when a buyer fails to make an effective rejection, or after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods, signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that the buyer will take or retain them in spite of their nonconformity. [30] Deaver's superior court affidavit stated that he confirmed with Auction Block personnel on site that the fish were in excellent condition, and also stated that Auction Block accepted the fish for shipment to Seafood Products. Auction Block did not rebut these facts, which establish that it had the opportunity to inspect the fish and that it did not indicate to Deaver that any defects were present. Auction Block therefore accepted the goods within the meaning of the UCC. [31] Acceptance imposes on Auction Block the burden of establishing any breach with respect to the accepted goods and, failing that, obligates Auction Block to pay Deaver the contract rate. [32] Because the dismissal of Deaver's complaint was founded on a ruling that Auction Block was not the buyer and because issues of material fact may remain, we remand for consideration of Deaver's claims against Auction Block. We express no opinion about the specific merits of Deaver's claims beyond our conclusion that Auction Block must be deemed the statutory buyer of the halibut under AS 44.25.040, that Deaver may therefore proceed against Auction Block's surety bond, and that Auction Block has the status of a buyer for purposes of a claim against Auction Block under the UCC. Deaver's Alaska Civil Rule 68 and attorney's fees arguments are mooted by our decision reversing the dismissal of Deaver's action, because the award of attorney's fees and costs to Auction Block must be vacated.