M6D4

  

Curtis  Moeller is a crop and dairy farmer. Huntting Elevator Company sells and  applies herbicides and fertilizers in addition to its other grain and  crop-related businesses. In the spring of 1995, Moeller met with  Huntting’s manager, Paul Steier, who suggested fertilizers and  herbicides that Moeller should use on his fields. Moeller agreed to  notify the elevator when his fields were ready to be sprayed with  herbicide. Between May 5 and May 18, 1995, Moeller planted corn. On May  20, 1995, he told the secretary at Huntting that he had finished  planting and that his fields were ready for spraying. After waiting ten  days for the sprayers, Moeller returned to Huntting and again notified  the company that these fields were ready for spraying. 

On June 13, 1995, after considerable complaining from Moeller about  the height of the foxtail and other weeds in his field, Huntting’s staff  sprayed 119 acres of Moeller’s fields and, three days later, sprayed  the remaining 34 acres. Of these total acres, 119 acres were sprayed  with a mixture of Accent, another herbicide, and a nonionic surfactant.  Twenty-five acres were sprayed with a mixture of Accent and another  herbicide. Nine acres were sprayed with herbicides other than Accent.  Moeller paid $5,194.20 for the herbicides and separately paid $638 for  the spraying services. 

The spray was not as effective as promised, and Moeller, who lost  substantial portions of his crops, filed suit under UCC Article 2 for  breach of express warranty, warranty for a particular purpose, and the  warranty of merchantability. Huntting maintains the contract is not  covered under the UCC and that Moeller’s only remedy must be to show  that Huntting was somehow negligent in its work. Who is correct? Is the  contract governed by UCC or common law? 

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *