Tom Trisler d/b/a Canal House Antiques v. Clayton L. Carter
996 N.E.2d 354
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Trisler d/b/a Canal House Antiques sued after Carter demanded a cash refund for a returned chest of drawers with nails protruding from the back.
- Carter initially accepted store credit but later sought a cash refund claim in small claims court.
- Trial court found no posted return policy but ordered Carter to be refunded $170 plus costs.
- Trial court concluded Trisler failed to provide a refund under Indiana law.”
- On appeal, Trisler argues there was no express or implied warranty requiring a refund and that no policy supported a cash refund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in ordering a refund. | Carter relied on U.C.C. provisions for revocation of acceptance. | No posted policy and no warranties require cash refund. | Reversed; no right to refund under cited U.C.C. provisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vetor v. Shockey, 414 N.E.2d 575 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (caveat emptor diminishing; U.C.C. governs goods sale)
- Buchanan v. Caine, 106 N.E. 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 1914) (caveat emptor and absence of fraud prior to U.C.C.)
- Agrarian Grain Co., Inc. v. Meeker, 526 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (revocation rights under I.C. 26-1-2-608)