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.

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

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

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

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