Court Opinion

ID: 9524895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:58:15.586668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:17.478457
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Although the term “lemon” is colorfully descriptive, it is of little assistance in determining whether the tractor was so defective that there was a jury question on the issue whether the exclusive remedy contained in paragraph G of the purchase order failed of its essential purpose. After distilling plaintiff’s testimony (at least fifty percent of which could be characterized as a Joycean stream of consciousness) to its essential facts, I conclude that the trial court correctly analyzed the factual situation in ruling on appellees’ motion for directed verdict. As one who spent a good portion of his youth imprecating the manufacturers of farm equipment, I share with the trial court a feeling of sympathy for appellant. On the other hand, I am satisfied from the record that as a matter of law appellees fulfilled their obligations under the terms of the sales contract. It is clear from the service bulletins included in the record that John Deere experienced a number of component failures in the early units of this particular tractor series. It advised its dealers accordingly and supplied the dealers with the necessary replacement parts. Likewise, I find no evidence in the record that Nelson Implement was not reasonably prompt in repairing the tractor when notified of a particular defect or malfunction. When viewed in the aggregate, the problems that appellant experienced with the tractor might seem to paint a picture of a totally unusable piece of equipment. When examined singly and in the perspective of the sequence in which they occurred and were repaired, however, these defects are more properly viewed as a series of exas*240perating but understandable problems. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s ruling that the exclusive remedy did not fail of its essential purpose.
I agree with the majority opinion’s treatment of the consequential damages issue and the counterclaim.