Opinion ID: 2311721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Acceptance of the Goods

Text: True, the tendered goods were not in full conformity with the terms of the verbal contract since the parties had agreed that the goods would be in a ready-to-go condition. Nevertheless, the presiding Justice found that the [d]efendant's claim of rescission because of a breach on the part of Plaintiff represents an unsubstantiated position. In order so to decide, the Justice below had to conclude, as an underlying fact, that the defendant, notwithstanding his protests of defective operational condition of the equipment, had not rejected the contract outright, but had accepted the goods with reasonable expectation that the defects would be corrected. In this, the record supports him. There was evidence to the effect that the defendant himself did work on the equipment to put it in proper condition and that he used some of the machinery for his own purposes. The Uniform Commerical Code (11 M.R.S.A., § 2-606) provides: (1) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer        (c) Does any act inconsistent with the seller's ownership;       . . . . Whether there is an acceptance of goods by reason of acts of the buyer inconsistent with the seller's ownership within the provision of 11 M.R.S.A., § 2-606(1)(c) is a question of fact for the trier of facts to be determined from the evidence in each particular case. Marine Mart, Inc. v. Pearce, 1972, 252 Ark. 601, 480 S.W.2d 133; Cervitor Kitchens, Incorporated v. Chapman, 1972, 7 Wash.App. 520, 500 P.2d 783. In resolving this issue in favor of the plaintiff, we cannot say that the single Justice was clearly wrong.