Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Kittitas Reclamation District sought to cancel a contract and claim damages from Spider Staging Corporation and its parent company, Flow International Corporation, due to an alleged breach of the implied warranty of fitness after Spider failed to deliver a functional incline inspection platform. The initial court ruling favored Kittitas, awarding them $27,248.17, but Spider appealed, arguing the statute of limitations had expired. According to RCW 62A.2-725(1), breach of warranty claims must be filed within four years of the breach's occurrence, which the court determined happened in April 1995 when Spider notified Kittitas that the platform was ready, despite a failed demonstration. The court found no explicit warranty of future performance to toll the statute of limitations and ruled that post-delivery testing did not delay its commencement. Additionally, the court dismissed Kittitas's 'sale on approval' argument since it was not previously raised. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, declaring Kittitas's 1999 complaint untimely and dismissing the case.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of Tender of Deliverysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court adopted a broad definition of 'tender of delivery' to include the notification of readiness for pickup, even if the goods are nonconforming, thus commencing the statute of limitations.
Reasoning: Tender of delivery requires the seller to put conforming goods at the buyer's disposal and notify the buyer adequately to enable them to take delivery, according to RCW 62A.2-503(1).
Effect of Post-Delivery Testing on Statute of Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that post-delivery testing did not affect the tender of delivery or the start of the statute of limitations period.
Reasoning: Courts have clarified that contractual provisions for post-delivery testing do not delay the accrual of breach of warranty claims.
Sale on Approval and Acceptance of Deliverysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected the argument that the contract was a 'sale on approval' because this issue was not raised in prior proceedings.
Reasoning: Additionally, Kittitas contends that the statute of limitations does not apply because the contract constituted a 'sale on approval,' which implies non-acceptance of delivery. This argument was not raised in prior proceedings and cannot be considered now under RAP 2.5(a).
Statute of Limitations for Breach of Warrantysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the statute of limitations for breach of warranty began when Spider informed Kittitas that the platform was ready in April 1995, thus rendering the September 1999 complaint untimely.
Reasoning: Under RCW 62A.2-725(1), an action for breach of warranty must be initiated within four years after the cause of action accrues, which occurs when the breach happens, regardless of the aggrieved party's awareness.
Warranty Extending to Future Performancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no explicit warranty extending to future performance, as required by RCW 62A.2-725(2), to toll the statute of limitations.
Reasoning: Kittitas argues that the field tests should toll the statute of limitations, referencing RCW 62A.2-725(2), which allows an exception for warranties that extend to future performance. However, this exception is narrowly construed, requiring the warranty to be explicit, unambiguous, and distinctly stated, with clear reference to a future time.