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

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

P purchased a tractor, plow, disc harrow, and hay baler from D through D's dealer, Baldridge Implement Company (Baldridge). The equipment was defective diminishing P’s harvest. P sued D and Baldridge for breach of implied and express warranties. The first trial ended in a mistrial. At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury rendered a verdict for $60,200 in favor of P against D. The jury held Baldridge not liable. D appealed. The court of appeals vacated the verdict and remanded for a third trial. It held that P had the burden of proving (1) the particular items of equipment which caused the specific damages, (2) that each item found defective was defective when it left the manufacturer's control, and (3) that P gave the manufacturer timely, direct notice of the claimed breach of warranty. P appealed. D argued, in part, that consequential damages required that D have actual knowledge of the harm the defects could cause.

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

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