The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Sitton acquired a gold ladies Rolex watch, President model, with a diamond bezel from P by forging a check belonging to his brother and misrepresenting to P that he had his brother's authorization for the purchase. The purchase price of the watch and the amount of the forged check was $ 9,438.50. Sitton telephoned D, the owner of a used car dealership, and asked D if he was interested in buying a Rolex watch. D purchased the watch for $3,550.00. D also called P that same day and spoke with Cherie Nowlin. Cherie verified the purchase stating that the check had not yet cleared. D told Cherie that he did not have the watch and that he did not want the watch. D would not tell her how much Sitton was asking for the watch. P learned the check would not be honored by the bank and called D, but D refused to talk and referred P to his attorney. P eventually refused to repurchase the watch. Sitton was indicted for forgery and theft. P then filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment. D filed a counterclaim for a declaration that D was a good faith purchaser of the watch and was entitled to possession and title of the watch. P was declared the sole owner of the watch. D contends there is evidence that the watch is a 'good' under the UCC, there was a voluntary transfer of the watch, and there was physical delivery of the watch. D maintains that the transaction between Sitton and P was a transaction of purchase such that Sitton acquired the ability to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser under 2-403.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.