Court Opinion

ID: 9656295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:46:10.733437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:31.411171
License: Public Domain

WOLLE, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that defendants were entitled to a directed verdict on the claim that they breached an implied warranty of fitness. I dissent because I believe defendants were also entitled to a directed verdict on the merchantability issue. Defendants should not be classified as merchants in the sale of hay from their farm fields.
In Sand Seed Service, Inc. v. Poeckes, 249 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 1977), this court upheld a summary judgment for a soybean-selling farmer on the ground he was not a “merchant” as that term is defined in Iowa Code section 554.2104(1). Essentially the same statutory definition applies here and the facts here are not materially different from the facts in Poeckes. I would summarize here, as this court summarized the issue in Poeckes:
The undisputed facts show only that Poeckes is a farmer who annually sells what he himself grows. Although this may make him an expert or professional in growing crops, it does not do so in selling them.
Id. at 666 (emphasis in original). Only the names need be changed to fit the facts here.
We should hold that the Bennetts — hay-selling farmers — were entitled to a directed verdict and judgment dismissing the merchantability claim because they were not merchants within the meaning of the commercial code definition.