Ruble Forest Products, Inc. v. Lancer Mobile Homes Of Oregon

524 P.2d 1204 (1974)

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

Ruble (P) is a lumber broker, and Lancer (D) is a mobile home manufacturer. D purchased lumber from P from 1969 through September 1971 from P. Between August 10 and September 28, 1971, P sold and shipped 11 truckloads of lumber to D for a total price of $31,091.24. In mid-October, P telephoned D to complain of P’s failure to pay for the lumber. D then told P that P had shipped defective lumber to D since 1969 amounting to about $5,000 and that if D were to pay any part of the monies owed, there would have to be a compromise. P testified that this was the first notice, P got D about any type of defects except for one complaint that had been dropped in 1970. P then told D he would extend a credit of $2,500 and his motive was based on the fact that D would not make any payments and because of the need for monies by P to pay bank loans. P wrote D a letter that for receiving $12,195.42 in partial payment of $31,091.24, that P would extend D a credit of $2,500. A schedule of payment for the balance was agreed upon with the last payment being made on January 24, 1972. P sued to recover the $2,500. D alleged that some of the lumber was defective and that a compromise had been reached of $2,500. P denied the lumber was defective and that D gave no proper notice of any claimed defects and that there was no bona fide dispute and that the debt was undisputed and liquidated and that D had coerced P and did so in bad faith. At trial, D entered evidence that its employee told a truck driver of P that he would not accept delivery of the shipment because the lumber was defective but that after what he understood to have been a phone call to P, the truckload was accepted. The shipping order dated August 10, 1971, was signed, accepted subject to inspection. P in rebuttal denied any complaint by D and that some of the shipments were delivered by trucks not operated by P’s employees. The evidence showed that the truck delivering on August 10, 1971, was operated by one of P’s employees. D got the judgment and P appealed.