Akron Brick & Block Co. v. Moniz Engineering Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1974 |
| Citation | 310 N.E.2d 128,365 Mass. 92 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 14 UCC Rep.Serv. 563 AKRON BRICK & BLOCK CO. v. MONIZ ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. |
Edward O. Proctor, Jr., Boston, for Akron Brick & Block Co.
John F. Cremens, Boston (Howard J. Alperin, Boston, and William E. Ryan, Brighton, with him), for Moniz Engineering Co., Inc.
Before REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, KAPLAN and WILKINS, JJ.
The buyer of a machine is here resisting a claim for the balance of the price; it asserts that under the contract the seller remained the owner of the machine, that the machine was returned to the seller, and that the seller will be unjustly enriched. We hold that (1) a District Court finding, introduced as 'prima facie evidence' in the Superior Court under G.L. c. 231, § 102C, is sufficient to warrant a finding no matter what other evidence is introduced in the Superior Court, and (2) apart from any District Court finding, under the Uniform Commercial Code, G.L. c. 106, § 2--709(1)(a), a seller is entitled to the balance of the price of goods accepted, even though the seller has retained title and the buyer has shipped the goods back to him.
Akron Brick & Block Co. (Akron) is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Akron, Ohio. By writ dated May 31, 1967, it began this action of contract in the Superior Court against Moniz Engineering Company, Inc. (Moniz), a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Teaticket on Cape Cod, to recover $15,000 paid for a machine. The action was transferred to the District Court under G.L. c. 231, § 102C, Moniz filed an answer in set-off, and trial resulted in a finding for Moniz as defendant and a finding for Moniz as plaintiff in set-off in the sum of $13,000. After retransfer to the Superior Court, trial before a jury resulted in a verdict for Moniz as defendant and for Moniz as plaintiff in set-off in the amount of $13,100. Akron brings exceptions which present the question whether the verdict on the answer in set-off was warranted by the evidence.
Much of the evidence was undisputed. By a written agreement dated December 3, 1963, Moniz agreed to sell the machine to Akron for $28,100, $10,000 with order, $5,000 on delivery, and the balance of $13,100 'in Thirty (30) days, after the machine is in operation.' Moniz Moniz 'will refund the down payment, including Engineering charges.' The $10,000 was paid in December, 1963.
Early in April, 1964, the machine was delivered and installed and the $5,000 due on delivery was paid. The machine was used by Akron until late in June. There was conflicting testimony as to how well it worked and as to whether there were complaints to Moniz. There was discussion of a possible modification of the machine to perform an additional function desired by one of Akron's customers, and Moniz made an offer in a letter dated July 3, 1964, to make such a modification, but there was no reply. On June 27, 1964, Akron took the machine out of service and shipped it back to Moniz. Moniz put it in a storage shed.
In October, 1964, Akron by letter demanded that Moniz refund the payments made on the machine. After conversations with Akron, Moniz tried to sell the machine to a New Hampshire firm. With the consent of Akron, Moniz let the New Hampshire firm use the machine for five or six weeks early in 1965, and the New Hampshire firm offered to buy it for $18,000. Akron was informed of the offer and rejected it. The machine was then returned to Moniz. At the time of trial it was still in a shed at Moniz's plant.
1. The District Court finding was admitted in evidence at the Superior Court trial. Under G.L. c. 231, § 102C, as amended, 'The decision of, and the amount of the damages assessed, if any, by a district court shall be prima facie evidence upon such matters as are put in issue by the pleadings, and no other findings of such court shall at any time be admissible as evidence or become part of the pleadings' (emphasis supplied). 'This rule means that no matter what other evidence might be introduced in the Superior Court, the decision of the District Court judge, which, so far as admissible at least, would consist of a very few words, such as 'I find for the plaintiff and assess damages in the sum of $250,' would be evidence warranting a finding for the plaintiff.' Lubell v. First Natl. Stores, Inc., 342 Mass. 161, 164, 172 N.E.2d 689, 691 (1961). It follows that there was no error in submitting the case to the jury.
2. Apart from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delano Growers' Co-op. Winery v. Supreme Wine Co., Inc.
...c. 106, §§ 2-703, 2-709(3) (seller can recover price only if buyer wrongfully rejects or revokes); Akron Brick & Block Co. v. Moniz Eng'g Co., 365 Mass. 92, 95, 310 N.E.2d 128 (1974); 11 S. Williston, Contracts § 1364B, at 356 (3d ed. 1968). Therefore, the judge properly dismissed Delano's ......
-
Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Docktor Pet Centers, Inc.
...the analogy of the sales provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, G.L. c. 106, §§ 2-607, 2-709. See Akron Brick & Block Co. v. Moniz Eng. Co., 365 Mass. 92, 93, 95, 310 N.E.2d 128 (1974). See also Wenzel, The Extension of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code to Leases of Goods, 12 Tul......
-
Bevel-Fold, Inc. v. Bose Corp., BEVEL-FOL
...Bose's revocation of acceptance occurred within a reasonable time. G.L. c. 106, § 2-608(2). Contrast Akron Brick & Block Co. v. Moniz Engr. Co., 365 Mass. 92, 95, 310 N.E.2d 128 (1974). Similarly, as to cabinets which were never accepted because they had not met the required accurate confor......
-
In re Continental Fire Trucks, Inc.
...regarding the retention of the certificate of origin, to a reservation of a security interest.3See Akron Brick & Block Co. v. Moniz Engineering Co., Inc. 365 Mass. 92, 310 N.E.2d 128 14 U.C.C. 563, 566 (1974). I find that title passed and a sale took place between the parties when Grappone ......