You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

M.K. Associates v. Stowell Products, Inc.

Citations: 697 F. Supp. 20; 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 775; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11813; 1988 WL 113936Docket: Civ. 87-0270 P

Court: District Court, D. Maine; October 18, 1988; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, M.K. Associates sued Stowell Products, Inc. to recover an outstanding balance of $10,518.40 for dowels sold. Stowell Products countered with a breach of contract claim, alleging the dowels were defective and asserting a right to offset damages against the amount owed. The court found in favor of M.K. Associates, determining that while Stowell Products had accepted and used the dowels, they failed to provide timely notice of the breach as required under U.C.C. 11 M.R.S.A. 2-607(3)(a). The court noted that Stowell Products' communication did not adequately indicate a breach, and their formal notice of breach, included in a response to the complaint, came over five months after receiving the dowels. The court emphasized that the U.C.C. requires explicit notification of a breach within a reasonable time, which Stowell Products did not meet, ultimately awarding M.K. Associates the full claimed amount plus interest and costs.

Legal Issues Addressed

Acceptance of Goods and Breach of Contract

Application: Stowell Products accepted the dowels and used them despite knowing of the defects, which did not negate their right to seek remedies for breach of contract.

Reasoning: The court concluded that while Stowell Products accepted the dowels and used them despite knowing of the defects, this acceptance did not negate the right to seek remedies for breach of contract.

Notice Requirement under U.C.C. 11 M.R.S.A. 2-607(3)(a)

Application: Stowell Products failed to provide timely notice of breach of contract within a reasonable time, as required by U.C.C., which led to the court ruling in favor of M.K. Associates.

Reasoning: A buyer must notify the seller of a breach of contract within a reasonable time after discovering the breach to avoid being barred from remedies, as stipulated in 11 M.R.S.A. 2-607(3)(a).

Requirement of Explicit Breach Notification

Application: The communication by Stowell Products did not clearly indicate that they considered the contract breached, failing to meet the U.C.C. notification standards.

Reasoning: The U.C.C. requires that the buyer's notice explicitly indicates a breach for it to be effective.

Timeliness of Notification

Application: Stowell Products' delay in notifying M.K. Associates of the breach until after litigation was initiated did not satisfy the U.C.C.'s requirement for timely notice.

Reasoning: Case law indicates that waiting until the seller initiates a lawsuit to assert a breach of contract does not fulfill the timely notice requirement.