Court Opinion

ID: 9688327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:43:31.993066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:37.521132
License: Public Domain

*971Shanahan, J.,
dissenting.
Although I do not necessarily disagree with the conclusion reached in this appeal, I do object to the simplistic approach taken by the majority in disposing of this appeal.
The subject action arises out of a contract for the sale of a horse and, therefore, arises out of a contract for the sale of goods, governed by the Nebraska Uniform Commercial Code-Sales, Neb. U.C.C. §§ 2-101 et seq. (Reissue 1980 & Cum. Supp. 1988). However, the majority fails to make any reference to the U.C.C. but, rather, resolves all issues on the basis of a common-law equitable action and remedy, notwithstanding the U.C.C. and apparent availability of a legal remedy under the code. A correct analysis and disposition under the appropriate standard of review depends on, and is determined by, the nature of the action and decision reviewed, that is, whether this court is reviewing an equity action and equitable remedy or whether the review relates to a law action based on the U.C.C. with its legal remedy or remedies. Consequently, as guidance in future actions, this court should have discussed applicability or inapplicability of the U.C.C. in relation to the result reached in this appeal. See, § 2-608; Koperski v. Husker Dodge, Inc., 208 Neb. 29, 302 N.W.2d 655 (1981) (distinction between law and equity in reference to an action based on the U.C.C.; rescission vs. revocation of acceptance; exhaustion of statutory legal remedy before invocation of equity); 1 J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 8-1 (3ded. 1988).
The fact that the majority ignored the U.C.C. does not negate existence of the U.C.C. and a remedy in a law action under the code.