Beutler claimed from the manufacturer the cost of the loader he had purchased plus the cost of a new Versatile 276 bi-directional tractor he purchased to replace the loader. The Court found that Beutler was not entitled to recover any damages from the defendant. The judge found that Beutler's use of the front-end loader he had purchased exceeded the use for which it was designed. The manufacturer's position was that the loader was appropriate for moving one single bale at a time. The judge rejected Beutler's comparison of the front-end loader's performance with that of the new Versatile machine he had purchased:
In my opinion, the Plaintiff used this FEL for a function that it was clearly not designed to perform in an effort to save himself both time and money. The Defendant at all times tried to make the Plaintiff happy with his purchase and demonstrated to him the proper use of the FEL. If the Plaintiff insists on using an implement in a fashion for which it is clearly not designed, it is difficult to see how the Defendant can be liable in contract. The Plaintiff called Mr. Edwards to indicate that in his opinion, the Plaintiff operated the FEL properly. The evidence on this point is not particularly useful as the Plaintiff would often be using the FEL where it could not be observed by Mr. Edwards and I do not accept that Mr. Edwards would have authorized the use of this particular FEL in lifting two bales vertically or even one bale vertically. The design speaks for itself.Read the decision at: Beutler v. Leon's Manufacturing Company Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment