Siemen v. Alden

341 N.E.2d 713 (1975)

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.