Court Opinion

ID: 9847257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:56:42.682474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:04.588101
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant strongly contends on re-hearing that proof of the legal obligation of the plaintiff to pay for cabinet and hardware orders it had placed for the benefit of the defendant does not entitle it to recover these amounts in the absence of evidence of actual damages, which cannot be ascertained without proof of the market value of these items. The evidence shows that the cabinet work was shipped on sight draft and was rejected by the defendant. The evidence is in conflict as to whether its admitted flaws resulted from poor construction, from damage in transit, or both. The defendant rejected the manufacturer’s tender of repair and replacement. Where these cabinets are now does not appear, nor their value. Such evidence as there is as to the present location of the hardware, also, is hearsay. Since this is not an action between buyer and seller, the provisions of § 2-703 of the Uniform Commercial Code cannot be directly applied, and the measure of damages might vary according to the remedy thereafter chosen by the seller. It is obvious, however, that when this defendant pays off the judgment against him representing damages equivalent to the purchase price of the casework and hardware he becomes by that fact the owner of the merchandise and entitled to whatever value *561it may have, since to allow the plaintiff or the manufacturer full payment plus goods involved would result in an unjust enrichment. In this connection see Code Ann. § 109A-2 — 709.