Bat Memorandum

645 Words3 Pages
MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: December 2, 2011 RE: Plaintiff v. Defendant- Baseball bat Issue: The plaintiff purchased a baseball bat from the defendant. The bat is made of a graphite carbon material, after some use, developed internal cracks, causing the bat to be useless. The plaintiff returned the bat to the store. The bat was replaced with a second bat. After some use, the same result of internal cracking. The plaintiff demanded a refund of the purchase price. The store refused. The purchasers then brought suit against the store before the Small Claims Part of Colonie Justice Court, Albany County (New York). The bat shattering violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”). INDUSTRIA DE CALCADOS MARTINI LTDA. v. MAXWELL SHOE CO., INC. No. 92-P-1322. The warranty states the bat cannot shatter if used properly. The bat must be in marketable condition for the warranty to be applied. Rule: Some cases, such as Fitl v. Strek, 690 N.W.2d 605 (2005) The plaintiff purchased a baseball card from defendant card trader. The plaintiff discovers that the card had been altered and was of no value. The plaintiff sues the defendant for what he argued was the current fair market value of an unaltered version of the same card.…show more content…
Analysis: In a case, Dudzik v. Klein's All Sports, 600 N.Y.S.2d 1013(1993) The unbreakable special baseball bat purpose is to hit baseballs is defective and cannot with stand the repeated use of hitting baseballs. Therefore the item was sold to the plaintiff is defected. The courts awarded the plaintiff. In the case, Fitl v. Strek, The card was sold to the plaintiff and the plaintiff thought the card was authentic, but turns out it was not. Therefore the item sold to the plaintiff is defected. The courts awarded the plaintiff a refund.

More about Bat Memorandum

Open Document