Hemmert Agricultural Aviation, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Aircraft Corp

663 F. Supp. 1546 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is engaged in the business of agricultural spraying. D is engaged in the business of commercial crop dusting and aircraft sales. D is an authorized dealer of Ag-Cat spray planes. Ag-Cat spray planes were initially manufactured by Grumman, but the current manufacturer is Schweizer Aircraft Corporation. In 1980, P purchased a 1977 used 'B' model Schweizer Ag-Cat. This 1977 'B' had a 300-gallon hopper and a larger tail and vertical fin than the Model G-164B Ag-Cat 600 Super 'B' plane (Super 'B'), which is the plane in issue. The Super 'B' had a 400-gallon hopper and a raised upper wing. From reading the literature, P believed the raised wing on the Super 'B' made it faster and more maneuverable and improved visibility. An engineer test pilot for the plane testified the raised wing was primarily for visibility purposes. P purchased the Super 'B' believing it would make his work easier, safer, and more profitable. An advertisement stated that the 'New raised wing design means more maneuverability; more visibility; more speed.' The 450 'B' described in the ad differs from the Super 'B' 600 hp. only in horsepower, hopper size, and length (4 inches). The deal was made, and the plane was delivered. P merely glanced at the Purchase Order and Delivery Receipt before signing them. The parties never discussed the warranty terms found on the back side of the purchase order prior to Hemmert's signature to the purchase order. P had not flown the particular Super 'B' he purchased nor flown any Super 'B' prior to his purchase. P made no inquiries to other spray pilots who were using a Super 'B.' On first flights, P noticed missing items and minor defects. P also noted that the plane was unresponsive in pitch, rolled excessively to the right, and lost airspeed in turns, giving the pilot the sensation that the aircraft was 'falling out from under him.' P informed D he was not satisfied and instructed D not to sell his trade-in. D represented that the trade-in had been sold; at that time, there was an outstanding offer on the trade-in). D replaced the engine. The mechanic test flew the plane empty for 30-40 minutes and detected nothing glaringly wrong with the plane's flight characteristics. P was not satisfied and contacted four other agricultural spray pilots and asked them to fly the Super 'B.' All four expressed dissatisfaction with the plane. An experienced Super B pilot told P to stick with it, but after he got used to it, he would love it, even though at first that pilot got sick of it and it did not respond like any other Ag-Cat spray plane. An experienced test pilot laid P’s issues with using too much rudder, a carryover from flying the big-fin 'B' models like P's trade-in. P was advised to stop 'cowboying' the plane and to try smoother turns. P lost confidence in the plane. P’s attorney sent a letter revoking acceptance. P sued D.