Siemen v. Alde

341 N.E.2d 713 (1975)

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 owned and operated a sawmill. He decided to purchase a multi-rip saw to increase his production of decking pallets. P contacted D, a manufacturer of the saw in question. A new saw could not be delivered in less than six months, and D suggested that P contact Korleski (D), who owned two of D's saws. P contacted Korleski (D) who demonstrated the first saw he owned which was working and operated in the same manner as the one P was considering purchasing. At a second meeting, P was shown the second saw which was sitting, partially dismantled, in a corner and was covered with boards and sawdust. Korleski (D) informed P that it was in operating condition, but P would have to supply and install saw blades, motor, shiv, belts, pulleys, and a sawdust removal apparatus in order to use it. They agreed on a purchase price of $ 2900. After it was put in use, P was injured when a cant of wood exploded while being fed through the saw. P sued Ds. D’s motion for summary judgment was granted. P appealed against Korleski (D) claiming in part that Korleski (D) was a merchant under the UCC.