Steinmetz v. Robertus

No. 81-117
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981

RUBEN C. STEINMETZ,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-VS-

RANDY ROBERTUS and DAVID ROBERTUS,
Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone
Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull and Jones, Billings,
Montana
For Respondents:
Thomas L. Bradley, Laurel, Montana

Submitted on briefs: August 27, 1981
Decided :I, _, 7
:_ -19BI
;

Filed: EC1 - 1981
 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.

I n a n a c t i o n f o r t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e of a n i r r i g a t i o n

pump, p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s a n u n f a v o r a b l e judgment of t h e c o u r t ,

s i t t i n g without a jury, i n the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,

Yellowstone County. P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s a n a c c e p t a n c e of t h e

pump on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t s w i t h a c o n s e q u e n t o b l i g a -

t i o n t o pay t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e . Defendants c l a i m t h e pump

was i m p r o p e r l y i n s t a l l e d and s u b s e q u e n t l y damaged, and t h e y

have r e f u s e d t o pay f o r t h e pump.

P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r review:

1) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o

make f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law w i t h r e g a r d t o

a c c e p t a n c e , r e j e c t i o n , and r e v o c a t i o n of a c c e p t a n c e under

t h e Uniform Commercial Code.

2) Whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t

t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t ( p a r t i c u l a r l y f i n d i n g of f a c t no. 3 ) ,

c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment.

W e affirm t h e D i s t r i c t Court, holding (1) t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law show t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t a c c e p t t h e pump a s a c c e p t a n c e i s

d e f i n e d i n t h e Uniform Commercial Code, and ( 2 ) t h e r e i s

s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s

of f a c t .

P l a i n t i f f i s a salesman of farm s e e d and i r r i g a t i o n

p r o d u c t s i n J o l i e t , Montana. Defendants own and r u n a farm

i n Carbon County. Between J a n u a r y and A p r i l of 1977, p l a i n t i f f ,

d e f e n d a n t s , and Roy B u c k l i n , d i s c u s s e d t h e proposed i n s t a l l a t i o n

of an i r r i g a t i o n system on d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d . Roy B u c k l i n

was t h e p r e s i d e n t of P i p e and Pump Supply of G r e y b u l l ,
Wyoming, which s u p p l i e d t h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s t o p l a i n t i f f

salesman. Two b i d s w e r e s u b m i t t e d and r e j e c t e d . Defendants

p a i d $2,000 on A p r i l 25, 1977. O n May 1, 1977, p l a i n t i f f

and d e f e n d a n t s made an o r a l agreement f o r t h e s a l e t o d e f e n d a n t s

of a n i r r i g a t i o n system f o r t h e p r i c e of $19,829, which

c o v e r e d t h e p r i c e of t h e system less i n s t a l l a t i o n c h a r g e s

and v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e p r i c e of t h e pump. Both p a r t i e s

a g r e e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o i n s t a l l and

t e s t t h e i r r i g a t i o n system.

Defendants had r e q u e s t e d a Western Land R o l l e r pump

which was u n a v a i l a b l e . P l a i n t i f f s u b s t i t u t e d a Fairbanks

Morse pump, which, a c c o r d i n g t o p l a i n t i f f was d e s i g n e d f o r

t h e t y p e of wheel row i r r i g a t i o n system o r d e r e d by d e f e n d a n t s .

Whether d e f e n d a n t s a g r e e d t o t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n p r i o r t o t h e

p l a i n t i f f ' s o r d e r i n g t h e F a i r b a n k s Morse pump i s d i s p u t e d .

The horsepower of t h e s u b s t i t u t e d pump was l o w e r , t h e p r i c e

h i g h e r , t h a n t h a t of t h e pump i n i t i a l l y r e q u e s t e d .

Because t h e F a i r b a n k s Morse pump would n o t be r e c e i v e d

u n t i l some days a f t e r t h e wheel rows t h e m s e l v e s w e r e i n s t a l l e d ,

and b e c a u s e , i n t h a t d r o u g h t y e a r , e a r l y i r r i g a t i o n was

e s s e n t i a l , p l a i n t i f f s u p p l i e d d e f e n d a n t s w i t h a temporary

t r a c t o r - r u n pump. The main l i n e and wheel rows w e r e c o m p l e t e l y

i n s t a l l e d by May 1 0 , 1977. The t r a c t o r - r u n power-take-off

pump (PTO) was i n s t a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y May 1 4 , 1977, and

functioned properly, supplying s u f f i c i e n t water. On May

1 9 , 1977, d e f e n d a n t s p a i d p l a i n t i f f an a d d i t i o n a l $13,384.00,

which c o v e r e d t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e of e v e r y t h i n g b u t t h e pump

and i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n .

The i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e pump r e q u i r e d t h e d i g g i n g of a

sump e x c a v a t i o n f o r w a t e r which would s u p p l y t h e pump

through a 4'x8'x8' m e t a l - w a l l e d p i p e o r sump. Mr. Bucklin
s p e c i f i e d t h e l o c a t i o n and dimensions of t h e e x c a v a t i o n when

h e and t h e p l a i n t i f f v i s i t e d d e f e n d a n t s ' farm i n mid-May.

~ u c k l i n l s o d e s i g n e d t h e metal-walled
a sump. The e x c a v a t i o n

f o r t h e sump was dug by Adams C o n s t r u c t i o n t h e day a f t e r t h e
v i s i t of B u c k l i n and S t e i n m e t z . N e i t h e r Bucklin n o r S t e i n m e t z

w a s p r e s e n t t o supervise t h e excavating. The m e t a l sump

a r r i v e d and was i n s t a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks l a t e r .

B e f o r e i n s t a l l a t i o n , t h e sump e x c a v a t i o n w a s re-dug, because

of c a v e - i n s . A f t e r t h e sump was i n s t a l l e d , t h e pump w a s

a t t a c h e d t o t h e sump. Because t h e pump's column was t o o

l o n g t o f i t down i n t o t h e sump, t h e pump was r a i s e d by

n a i l i n g r a i l r o a d t i e s t o g e t h e r , c h a i n i n g them t o t h e sump,

and b o l t i n g t h e pump t o t h e t o p t i e . Bucklin t e s t i f i e d t h a t

h e d i d n o t a t t a c h a s c r e e n t o t h e pump, t h a t such a s c r e e n

was o p t i o n a l , and t h a t t h e sump was s c r e e n e d . Plaintiff,

B u c k l i n , and a c o u p l e of h e l p e r s s u p e r v i s e d t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n

which took a l l of t h e day o f June 5 , 1977. Because e l e c t r i c i t y

had n o t y e t been e x t e n d e d t o t h e system, p l a i n t i f f , B u c k l i n ,

and h e l p e r s d e p a r t e d b e f o r e t h e pump was t u r n e d o n , a s d i d

p l a i n t i f f t h e f o l l o w i n g day when t h e w i r i n g was n o t completed

by n e a r l y noon.

The w a t e r i n t h e sump was " d i r t y . . . mucky looking,"

a c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t s , and when t h e y t u r n e d t h e pump o n ,

t h e pump r a n a few m i n u t e s , then q u i t . N w a t e r e v e r came
o

o u t of t h e pump. A r e l a t i v e "probed around i n t h e bottom of

t h e sump and found i t was f u l l of mud and r o c k , "

T h a t evening d e f e n d a n t c a l l e d p l a i n t i f f , complaining

t h a t t h e pump d i d n o t work. The p l a i n t i f f responded t h a t he

would t r y t o come o u t t h e f o l l o w i n g morning. Defendants

h i r e d a n o t h e r p a r t y , who c l e a n e d t h e sump t h e n e x t d a y , b u t

t h e pump f a i l e d t o pump any w a t e r . P l a i n t i f f was u n a b l e t o
come o u t t h a t d a y , and when d e f e n d a n t c a l l e d him t h a t e v e n i n g ,

a h e a t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n ensued i n which, a c c o r d i n g t o p l a i n t i f f ,

d e f e n d a n t Randy R o b e r t u s t h r e a t e n e d h i s l i f e . Defendant

d e n i e s he made t h e t h r e a t b u t a g r e e s t h a t he became q u i t e

a n g r y , and demanded t h a t p l a i n t i f f c a l l Bucklin s o t h e

m a t t e r c o u l d be s e t t l e d t h a t n i g h t .

T h a t same e v e n i n g , p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d , Bucklin a d v i s e d

p l a i n t i f f t o s t a y o u t of t h e m a t t e r and away from t h e R o b e r t u s

farm. Bucklin t h e n c a l l e d d e f e n d a n t Randy R o b e r t u s , and

a s s u r e d him he would come o u t and check t h e pump. In fact,

Mr. B u c k l i n removed t h e pump, which he t e s t i f i e d was choked

w i t h " p i e c e s of c o r n s t a l k s , sand and g r a v e l , " which c o u l d

damage t h e pump i f l e f t i n i t f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e .

B u c k l i n c l e a n e d t h e pump and h i s h i r e d man r e t u r n e d i t i n

s e v e r a l days. B u c k l i n t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e pump was undamaged,

b u t a d m i t s t h a t t h i s t i m e he d i d i n s t a l l a s c r e e n i n t h e

pump. The h i r e d man, James J o n e s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he

i n s t a l l e d t h e pump a f t e r Bucklin c l e a n e d i t , i t worked " f o r

a s h o r t t i m e u n t i l i t sucked a l l t h e w a t e r o u t " of t h e

sump. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he r e t u r n e d a f t e r t h e 4 t h

of J u l y t o p i c k up t h e PTO pump, t h e d e f e n d a n t s had s u p p l i e d

more w a t e r from an i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h and Randy Robertus made

no c o m p l a i n t , b u t i n d i c a t e d he was p l e a s e d w i t h t h e e l e c t r i c a l

pump ( t h e F a i r b a n k s Morse). Both B u c k l i n and p l a i n t i f f

t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was no f u r t h e r c o m p l a i n t a b o u t t h e

working of t h e pump u n t i l October, w e l l a f t e r t h e end of t h e

i r r i g a t i n g s e a s o n , when d e f e n d a n t s ' f a t h e r t e l e p h o n e d

p l a i n t i f f and demanded t h a t p l a i n t i f f t a k e back t h e pump

b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t work p r o p e r l y . P l a i n t i f f presented s i x

w i t n e s s e s , a l l of whom t e s t i f i e d t o " d r i v i n g by" t h e R o b e r t u s

farm and s e e i n g t h e wheel rows i r r i g a t i n g t h e f i e l d of
barley.

Defendants deny t h a t t h e y t o l d M r . J o n e s t h e system

" p l e a s e d " them; i n f a c t , t h e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t on a t l e a s t

t h r e e o c c a s i o n s , t h e y c a l l e d B u c k l i n , complaining t o h i s

w i f e o r s e c r e t a r y t h a t t h e pump w a s n o t f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y .

B u c k l i n n e v e r responded t o t h e i r c o m p l a i n t s . Defendants

t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o r a l m o s t two weeks, t h e y t r i e d t o make

t h e pump r u n r i g h t , s w i t c h i n g w a t e r from one wheel row t o

t h e o t h e r , then t o both, t h e n moving t h e wheel rows and

t r y i n g again. They c l a i m t o have r u n t h e pump 24 h o u r s a

day t o no a v a i l ; i t s i n e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n f a i l e d t o i r r i g a t e

t h e f i e l d s s u f f i c i e n t l y , and t h e y s u f f e r e d a s e v e r e c r o p

l o s s i n t h e f i e l d s , which produced o n l y 20 b u s h e l s p e r a c r e

o f b a r l e y i n s t e a d of t h e a n t i c i p a t e d 80 b u s h e l s . Their

t e s t i m o n y was c o r r o b o r a t e d by a n e i g h b o r who t e s t i f i e d t h a t

t h e pump n e v e r worked p r o p e r l y . Defendants r e p l a c e d t h e

F a i r b a n k s Morse pump i n s p r i n g of 1978 a t a c o s t of a p p r o x i m a t e l y

$4,000.00.

A f t e r h a r v e s t , i n October o f 1977, t h e d e f e n d a n t s t

f a t h e r c o n t a c t e d p l a i n t i f f and t o l d him t o come and g e t t h e

pump -- i t d i d n ' t work, and d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t i n t e n d t o pay

f o r it. P l a i n t i f f r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e pump and demanded

f u l l payment f o r t h e pump and i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s , a t o t a l of

$4,865.00.

The o r i g i n a l a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s was i n s t i t u t e d

by P i p e and Pump Supply. Defendants d e n i e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s

i n t h e c o m p l a i n t and a l l e g e d t h a t P i p e and Pump Supply was a

Wyoming c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h o u t a c e r t i f i c a t e of a u t h o r i t y t o do

b u s i n e s s i n Montana and had no s t a n d i n g t o s u e . Defendants

c o u n t e r c l a i m e d a g a i n s t Ruben S t e i n m e t z r e q u e s t i n g t h a t

p l a i n t i f f t a k e n o t h i n g by t h e i r a c t i o n and s e e k i n g damages
i n t h e amount of $6,000.00. Subsequently, t h i r d - p a r t y

defendant Steinmetz counterclaimed a g a i n s t defendants Robertus.

Defendants R o b e r t u s moved f o r d i s m i s s a l of t h e c o m p l a i n t of

P i p e and Pump Supply and t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m by S t e i n m e t z . The

motion w a s g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on September 5 ,

1979, a n d , i n a --- o r d e r d a t e d September 1 4 , 1979,
Nunc P r o Tunc

t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e motions t o d i s m i s s be g r a n t e d

without prejudice. S t e i n m e t z f i l e d a n amended c o m p l a i n t

a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s R o b e r t u s on October 1 2 , 1979, a l l e g i n g

t h e s a l e of a wheel row i r r i g a t i o n system a t an a g r e e d upon

p r i c e of $20,249.00 and d e f e n d a n t s ' f a i l u r e t o pay t h e

b a l a n c e of $4,865.00, and r e q u e s t i n g judgment i n t h e amount

of t h e b a l a n c e due and c o s t s . Defendants d e n i e d a l l a l l e g a t i o n s .

T r i a l was had on December 11, 1980. On December 1 5 ,

1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and

c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w and e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s ,

d i s m i s s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t and awarding c o s t s t o t h e

defendants. P l a i n t i f f appeals.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s

o f law a r e as f o l l o w s :

"FINDINGS OF FACT

"1. T h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e d e f e n d a n t s on
A p r i l 25, 1977, e n t e r e d i n t o a n agreement
whereby p l a i n t i f f was t o p r o v i d e and i n s t a l l
a wheel r o l l i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m , t o g e t h e r w i t h
a pump, f o r t h e p r i c e of $20,249.00, which
c o n s i s t e d of t h e s m of $13,384.00 f o r t h e
u
wheel r o l l s p r i n k l e r and $4,365.00 f o r t h e
pump; t h a t d e f e n d a n t s have p a i d $13,365.00
f o r t h e wheel r o l l system. [Defendants made
a $2,000.00 down payment on t h e wheel r o l l
system i n A p r i l , and p a i d a n a d d i t i o n a l
$13,384.00 i n May. The t o t a l p r i c e of t h e
wheel r o l l system was $15,384.00. The c o s t
of t h e wheel r o l l s , p l u s t h e u n p a i d amount --
$4,365.00 f o r t h e pump and $500.00 f o r i t s
i n s t a l l a t i o n -- b r o u g h t t h e c o n t r a c t amount
t o $20,249.00.1

"2. T h a t t h e wheel r o l l i r r i g a t i o n system
was t o be i n s t a l l e d and working upon d e f e n -
d a n t s ' farm i n Carbon County, Montana, w i t h -
i n t e n (10) days.
 " 3 . That t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o properly
i n s t a l l s a i d pump i n t h a t t h e pump was i n -
s t a l l e d i n a sump t h a t was f i l l e d w i t h mud
and t r a s h ; t h a t no s c r e e n was p l a c e d o v e r
t h e i n t a k e of s a i d pump; t h a t t h e pump drew
i n mud and t r a s h and was damaged; t h a t t h e
p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o t e s t s a i d pump o r i r r i -
g a t i o n system; t h a t a s a consequence t h e
pump f a i l e d t o work and f a i l e d t o a d e q u a t e l y
i r r i g a t e t h e l a n d s of t h e d e f e n d a n t s a s
c a l l e d f o r i n t h e agreement.

"4. T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were f o r c e d t o remove
t h e pump o f t h e p l a i n t i f f and s u b s e q u e n t l y
had t o p u r c h a s e a new pump from a n o t h e r sup-
plier.

"5. That defendants o f f e r e d t o r e t u r n t h e
pump t o t h e p l a i n t i f f b u t t h a t p l a i n t i f f re-
f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e same and r e f u s e d t o make
t h e wheel r o l l system o p e r a b l e .

"From t h e f o r e g o i n g F a c t s , t h e C o u r t draws
t h e following:

"CONCLUSIONS O L W
F A

"1. T h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e
a n o p e r a b l e pump a s r e q u i r e d under h i s a g r e e -
ment w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s .

"2. T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s have o f f e r e d t o
r e t u r n p l a i n t i f f ' s pump, b u t p l a i n t i f f r e f u s e s
t o a c c e p t t h e same.

"3. T h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d be d i s -
missed and judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e
defendants. "

P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t because n e i t h e r t h e defendants'

answer denying p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n s n o r t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w s p e c i f i c a l l y

a d d r e s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n s o f a c c e p t a n c e , r e j e c t i o n , and r e v o c a t i o n

a s s e t f o r t h i n Montana's Uniform Commercial Code, t h i s

C o u r t must r e v e r s e and remand w i t h o r d e r s t o t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t t o e n t e r judgment i n f a v o r of t h e p l a i n t i f f . Plaintiff

c i t e s B a l l a n t y n e v . The Anaconda Company ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 574 P.2d

582, 175 Mont. 406, a s r e q u i r i n g f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s

of law i n s u p p o r t of a judgment. While t h e C o u r t i n t h a t

c a s e d i d d e s c r i b e t h e p u r p o s e and f u n c t i o n of a w r i t t e n
o p i n i o n , t h e C o u r t d i r e c t e d t h e c a s e be remanded t o t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t which was d i r e c t e d t o s e t f o r t h t h e r e a s o n

f o r i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s new t r i a l i n a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., which s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e s

t h a t a c o u r t g r a n t i n g new t r i a l s h a l l s p e c i f y t h e grounds

w i t h s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i t y a s t o a p p r i s e t h e p a r t i e s and

t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e r a t i o n a l e u n d e r l y i n g t h e r u l i n g .

C e r t a i n l y t h i s C o u r t would much p r e f e r a more p r e c i s e

and d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t of f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s

o f law t h a n t h o s e p r e p a r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n d e c i d i n g

t h i s action. W e approve t h e q u o t a t i o n i n B a l l a n t y n e from

t h e comment of Chief J u s t i c e Hughes: "[A] well-stated

o p i n i o n i s of g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a s a

c h a r t of t h e r e a s o n i n g f o l l o w e d by t h e t r i a l judge i n r e a c h i n g

a decision." B a l l a n t y n e v. Anaconda Co, 175 Mont. a t 409,

574 P.2d a t 584. A s s e t f o r t h i n Rule 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.,

t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d f o r o u r r e v i e w of f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s

is:

" F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h a l l n o t be s e t a s i d e
u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and due r e g a r d
s h a l l be g i v e n t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e
t r i a l c o u r t t o judge of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of
t h e witnesses."

W e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n

t h i s c a s e were c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , i n l i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e

p r e s e n t e d and t h e c o n s i s t e n c y of t h e f i n d i n g s w i t h t h e U C C r s

p r o v i s i o n s g o v e r n i n g r e j e c t i o n of non-conforming goods.

Montana UCC s t a t e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t :

"30-2-601. . . . [ I ] t h e goods o r t h e t e n d e r
f
of d e l i v e r y f a i l i n any r e s p e c t t o conform t o
t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e buyer may:

" ( a ) r e j e c t t h e whole. . .
"30-2-602. (1) R e j e c t i o n of goods must be w i t h -
i n a reasonable time a f t e r t h e i r d e l i v e r y o r
tender. I t i s i n e f f e c t i v e u n l e s s t h e buyer
seasonably n o t i f i e s the seller.
 " 30-2-606. (1) Acceptance of goods o c c u r s
when t h e buyer:

" ( a ) a f t e r a reasonable opportunity t o i n s p e c t
t h e goods s i g n i f i e s t o t h e s e l l e r t h a t t h e goods
a r e conforming o r t h a t he w i l l t a k e o r r e t a i n
them i n s p i t e of t h e i r noncomformity; o r

" ( b ) f a i l s t o make an e f f e c t i v e r e j e c t i o n (sub-
s e c t i o n (1) of 30-2-602), b u t such a c c e p t a n c e
d o e s n o t o c c u r u n t i l t h e buyer h a s had a
r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t them; o r

" ( c ) d o e s any a c t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e l l e r ' s
ownership; b u t i f such a c t i s wrongful as a g a i n s t
t h e s e l l e r it i s an acceptance only i f r a t i f i e d
by him." S e c t i o n 30-2-601 -. - , MCA.
et seq.

There was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f o l l o w i n g

conclusions:

( a ) The goods were non-conforming o r were i m p r o p e r l y

delivered. The p a r t i e s a r e a g r e e d t h a t i t was p a r t of t h e

agreement, and a m a t t e r of common p r a c t i c e i n t h e i r r i g a t i o n

equipment t r a d e , f o r t h e s e l l e r t o s u p e r v i s e t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n

of a n i r r i g a t i o n system and t e s t i t s performance. Here,

b o t h p l a i n t i f f and h i s s u p p l i e r were p r e s e n t t h e day t h e

pump was i n s t a l l e d and y e t t h e r e were a number of q u e s t i o n a b l e

occurrences. The s c r e e n l e s s pump drew i n s u f f i c i e n t d e b r i s

t o clog it before any_ w a t e r was pumped t o t h e wheel rows.
Both B u c k l i n and p l a i n t i f f S t e i n m e t z l e f t t h e farm b e f o r e

t h e i r r i g a t i o n pump was t e s t e d . Neither Bucklin nor p l a i n t i f f

r e t u r n e d t o t h e farm t o t e s t t h e system a f t e r i t s " c u r e " and

a s c e r t a i n t h a t i t was f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y ; t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n s

were l i m i t e d t o what t h e y c o u l d see " d r i v i n g by" t h e farm.

( b ) There was a f a i l u r e t o c u r e t h e d e f e c t s of t h e

pump. Defendants c o n t a c t e d p l a i n t i f f e a r l y and e m p h a t i c a l l y ,

t h e day a f t e r t h e pump's i n s t a l l a t i o n , c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i n g

t h a t i t d i d n o t work. They made a number of u n s u c c e s s f u l

a t t e m p t s a f t e r t h e a t t e m p t e d " c u r e " t o c o n t a c t B u c k l i n , who

a d m i t t e d l y was f u l f i l l i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s d u t i e s f o l l o w i n g t h e
h a r s h exchange between p l a i n t i f f and Randy R o b e r t u s , w i t h o u t
any r e s p o n s e from B u c k l i n .

(c) F i n a l l y and p e r h a p s most i m p o r t a n t l y , d e f e n d a n t s

t e n t o twelve d a y s ' " u s e " of t h e pump i n J u n e o r e a r l y J u l y

was i n f a c t a p r o l o n g e d e f f o r t t o d e t e r m i n e why t h e pump

f a i l e d t o work and t o c u r e t h e d e f e c t t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e

a b s e n c e of any r e s p o n s e by t h e p l a i n t i f f ( o r Bucklin) t o

defendants' complaints. A s such, i t was n e v e r a n a c t i n c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h s e l l e r ' s ownership under S e c t i o n 3 0 - 2 - 6 0 6 ( 1 ) ( c ) , MCA,

b u t r a t h e r a r e a s o n a b l e and t i m e l y i n s p e c t i o n of t h e pump,

under S e c t i o n 30-2-606(1) ( b ) , MCA, t o d e t e r m i n e i f i t was o r c o u l d

be i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e agreement. The Montana Power

r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e pump was n o t used f o r " s e v e r a l

months," a s p l a i n t i f f c h a r g e s , b u t f o r no more t h a n two

weeks t o t a l . Defendants t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o r n e a r l y t h a t

l e n g t h of t i m e , t h e y t r i e d , w i t h o u t s u c c e s s , e v e r y c o n c e i v a b l e

v a r i a t i o n of r i g g i n g up t h e wheel r o l l s and changing t h e i r

l o c a t i o n t o t r y t o make t h e pump work a s p l a i n t i f f had

a s s u r e d them i t would work.

Montana's Uniform Commercial Code p r o v i d e s ". . .
a c c e p t a n c e d o e s n o t o c c u r u n t i l t h e buyer h a s had a r e a s o n a b l e

o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t [ t h e goods] ." S e c t i o n 30-2-606 (1)( b ) ,

MCA. When t h e goods i n q u e s t i o n can o n l y be i n s p e c t e d by

p u t t i n g them t o t h e u s e f o r which t h e y a r e i n t e n d e d , a r e a s o n a b l e

t i m e f o r i n s p e c t i o n n a t u r a l l y w i l l be l o n g e r t h a n i f t h e goods a r e
i t e m s whose c o n f o r m i t y o r nonconformity c a n be d e t e r m i n e d

s i m p l y by l o o k i n g a t them.

A c o u r t must be r e a l i s t i c i n a p p r a i s i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y

of a b u y e r ' s o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t , and s h o u l d n o t h o l d

t h a t t h e buyer h a s a c c e p t e d where b e c a u s e of t h e t e c h n i c a l

o r complex n a t u r e of t h e goods t h e buyer c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r t h a y a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y u n t i l h e a c t u a l l y makes u s e of

them. 2 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, (2d e d . 1971)

( ~ u p p .1 9 8 1 ) , 191-192. When a b u y e r a t t e m p t s t o c o o p e r a t e

w i t h t h e s e l l e r , and "work t h e bugs o u t " o f a complex p i e c e

of machinery by b r i e f l y p u t t i n g t h e machinery t o i t s i n t e n d e d

u s e , h e s h o u l d n o t be a c t i n g a t h i s p e r i l . Courts should be

h e s i t a n t t o f i n d t h a t such a c t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e

s e l l e r ' s ownership. S e e White and Summers, Uniform Commercial

Code (2d e d . 1 9 8 0 ) , 300.

Here, d e f e n d a n t s w e r e a s s u r e d t h a t t h e pump i n q u e s t i o n

was d e s i g n e d t o s u p p l y two t o t h r e e wheel rows w i t h a d e q u a t e

water. D e f e n d a n t s ' u s e of t h e pump c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d t h e

"period of experimentation" recognized i n C a r l Beasley Ford,

I n c . v. Burroughs Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1 9 7 3 ) , 361 F.Supp. 325,

aff'd. - unpub.
in =., (3rd C i r . ) , 493 F.2d 1400.

I t i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t m e r e n o t i f i c a t i o n of poor

q u a l i t y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e r e j e c t i o n under t h e

Uniform Commercial Code. S e e S o u t h e a s t e r n S t e e l v. B u r t o n

Block & C o n c r e t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 273 S.C. 634, 258 S.E.2d 888, and

cases cited therein. Here w e f i n d more t h a n m e r e n o t i f i c a -

tion. D e f e n d a n t Randy R o b e r t u s t w i c e c o n t a c t e d p l a i n t i f f

b e f o r e t h e a t t e m p t e d " c u r e " o f t h e pump's d e f e c t s ; d e f e n d a n t s

t h r e e t i m e s c o n t a c t e d Roy B u c k l i n , who was a c t i n g on p l a i n t i f f ' s

b e h a l f , a f t e r t h e i n e f f e c t u a l " c u r e " of t h o s e d e f e c t s ; and

d e f e n d a n t s , who had p a i d t h e t o t a l p r i c e o f t h e wheel r o l l

s y s t e m w i t h i n d a y s o f i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n , r e f u s e d t o pay any

p a r t o f t h e pump p u r c h a s e p r i c e o v e r a p e r i o d of s e v e r a l

months.

W e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and

c o n c l u s i o n s of law a r e n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e Montana UCC

d e s p i t e t h a t c o u r t ' s r e g r e t t a b l e f a i l u r e t o develop a c l e a r
s t a t e m e n t of t h e f a c t s a s t h e y r e l a t e t o a p p l i c a b l e Montana

law on s a l e s . Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was no

a c c e p t a n c e by t h e d e f e n d a n t s , no a c t u a l u s e i n c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h t h e ownership of t h e p l a i n t i f f , and no d e l a y i n o f f e r i n g

a r e t u r n of non-conforming goods s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o

j u s t i f y a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t s had a c c e p t e d t h e pump.

I1

P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence

s u p p o r t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . W have
e

a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d much of t h e r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e . This Court

w i l l uphold f i n d i n g s based on c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e when
t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e whole r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g

such f i n d i n g s . The e v i d e n c e must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most

favorable t o the prevailing party. Weston v . Kuntz ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,

Mont. , P.2d , 38 St.Rep. 1691, 1693;

Toeckes v. Baker ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 611 P.2d 609, 611,

37 St.Rep. 948, 950; H a g f e l t v. Mahaffey ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont.

There i s ample e v i d e n c e of a n agreement t h a t p l a i n t i f f

would s u p p l y a pump c a p a b l e of p r o v i d i n g two, p e r h a p s t h r e e ,

wheel rows w i t h a d e q u a t e w a t e r , and t h a t p l a i n t i f f would

s u p e r v i s e t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n and t e s t i n g of t h e system once i t

was installed. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e

system d i d n o t o p e r a t e a t a l l i n i t i a l l y , and t h a t f o l l o w i n g

d e f e n d a n t s ' c o m p l a i n t s and nonpayment f o r t h e pump and

installation, p l a i n t i f f ' s supplier, a t p l a i n t i f f ' s request,

a t t e m p t e d t o f i x t h e pump. Defendants have p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l

e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e pump n e v e r f u n c t i o n e d p r o p e r l y and was

n e v e r made e f f e c t i v e d e s p i t e d e f e n d a n t s ' c o n t i n u e d p r o t e s t s

t o p l a i n t i f f ' s s u p p l i e r who was a c t i n g a s p l a i n t i f f ' s middleman

a f t e r t h e J u n e 1 7 t h q u a r r e l between p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t
Randy Robertus. Defendants t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s a r e s u l t of

t h e pump's f a i l u r e , a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of t h e b a r l e y c r o p

was l o s t , and d e f e n d a n t s purchased a new pump t h e f o l l o w i n g

spring.

W f i n d t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting t h e
e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t .

Affirmed.

W e Concur:

s-.,4dq%4
Chief J u s t i c e