Opinion ID: 3002874
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: If the goods are to be specially manufactured

Text: for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business and the seller, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances which reason- ably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitments for their procurement . . . . Wis. Stat. § 402.201(3)(a). Defendant argues that the magistrate judge erred in applying § 402.201(3)(a) because the record does not show either that the goods were actually manufactured or that the boards were specially designed. Both of these arguments fail. As to defendant’s first argument, the record reflects that Edmonds testified multiple times that the goods were manufactured. For example, plaintiff’s counsel directly asked Edmonds, “And were the items manufactured?” to which Edmonds responded, “Yes.” Later, 14 No. 08-3282 Edmonds and his counsel had the following exchange regarding defendant’s order for 1,000 USB boards: Q. Did you complete the manufacturing process? A. We completed the manufacture of those boards. Q. And are those items in existence today? A. They are in existence. Q. And has ReMapp paid for the component parts? A. We have. Edmonds also testified that, in total, plaintiff had manufactured 2,000 USB boards and 2,000 HUB boards. Finally, the court asked Edmonds directly whether the manufacturing was completed on the goods, and Edmonds explained that “the boards are fabricated but the components aren’t on the boards.” As to whether the goods were specially made, Edmonds testified that the boards were manufactured to fit defendant’s specific design. He further testified that they could not have been used by any other company. Moreover, Edmonds testified that the boards had defendant’s proprietary design and plaintiff would have no reason to give them to anyone without permission. The evidence cited by defendant on appeal does not refute this evidence. Afifi testified that he had problems with some of the previous boards he received. As a result, he had to desolder a wire, clean the holes and solder a resistor onto the board. However, nothing about Afifi’s testimony identifies the wire as the uniquely manufactured part of the board, or that the replacement of the wire would No. 08-3282 15 change the nature of the board, such that it would not have been defendant’s specific design. Accordingly, this court rejects defendant’s argument that the district court erred in finding that the boards were specially manufactured goods.