Absolute Safety Training Paramedic Program Case Analysis

case analysis

Parker v. Arthur Murray, Inc.

295 N.E.2d 487 (Ill. Ct. App. 1973)

Lile v. Kiesel
871 N.e 2d 995
Indiana Court of Appeals. 2007
By: Yuhao Li
Facts:
-Edward and Kelly Kiesels bought a trailer from James Lile. That same day, the Kiesels used the
trailer. The next morning, after an all-night rain, the Kiesels noticed water inside the trailer,
near the door. The next time it rained, Edward noticed more pooling. A week later, Edward
brought the trailer in for repairs.
-Lile repaired the roof with new silicone. But a week later the trailer leaked again, and Kelly
reported it to Lile and demanded a refund. Lile refused the refund but offered to make repairs.
Instead, the Kissesls took the trailer to a different shop and the owner told them that based on
the extensive rust, the trailer had been leaking for longer than the Kiesels had owned it.
-The Kiesels sued. Lile claimed that the Kiesels had accepted the trailer and unfairly refused
repairs. The trial court awarded the Kiesels the full purchase price and, Lile appealed
Issue:
-Were the Kiesels entitled to the trailer’s purchase price?
Holding:
-Yes, judgment for the Kiesels affirmed.
-Lile argued that the Kiesels accepted the trailer and therefore could not later reject it. The
court agreed. However, that did not mean that the Kiesels could not revoke their acceptance.
-The court found Edward made several visits to Lile’s before purchasing the trailer, and
eventually negotiated a purchase price. The trailer leaked twice within one week of buying it,
and Edward reported the leaking problem promptly.
-The court found that the leaking rust damage substantially impaired the value of the trailer.
Also, because the leaks were due to rain, it would have been difficult for the Kiesel’s to have
discovered them prior to buying the trailer. Thus, the court found that the Kiesel’s met the
requirements for revocation of acceptance.
-Lile also argued that the Kiesel’s acted in bad faith by not allowing him to cure the trailer’s
defects.
Discussion:
-there was no evidence that the Kiesels acted in bad faith.
-To the contrary, Edward gave Lile an opportunity to repair the trailer even though he was not
obligated to do so.
Conclusion:
-Kiesels correctly revoked their acceptance of the trailer purchased from Lile, and the trial court
accurately ordered Lile’s to refund Kiesels the purchase price of the trailer.
Vocabulary:
-Installment contact: Agreement in which performance is to be made in a series of separate
payments or deliveries.
-Revocation: The buyer may revoke acceptance but if the non-conformity substantially impairs
value of the goods and oly if he/she had a legitimate reason for the initial acceptance.
-Rejection: The buyer may reject non-conforming goods by notifying the seller within a
reasonable time.