CHAPTER 11 - Case Synopsis— Fitl v. Strek At a sports card show in 1995, James F
ID: 365610 • Letter: C
Question
CHAPTER 11 - Case Synopsis— Fitl v. Strek At a sports card show in 1995, James Fitl of Omaha, Nebraska, met Mark Strek, doing business as Star Cards of San Francisco. On Strek’s representation about the condition of a certain baseball card, Fitl bought it from Strek for $17,750. In May 1997, Fitl sent the card to Professional Sports Authenticators, a sports-cards grading service, which told Fitl that the card was ungradable. Fitl complained to Strek, who replied that Fitl should have acted within “a typical grace period for the unconditional return of a card, . . . 7 days to 1 month” of its receipt. ASA Accugrade, Inc., another grading service, agreed that the card was ungradable. Fitl filed a suit in a Nebraska state court against Strek, seeking damages. The court awarded Fitl $17,750, plus his court costs. Strek appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. In the circumstances of this case, notice of a defect in the goods two years after their purchase was reasonable. Fitl had reasonably relied on Strek’s representation that the goods were “authentic,” which they were not, and when their defects were discovered, Fitl had given a timely notice. “[T]he policies behind the notice requirement, to allow the seller to correct a defect, to prepare for negotiation and litigation, and to protect against stale claims at a time beyond which an investigation can be completed, were not unfairly prejudiced by the lack of an earlier notice to Strek. Any problem Strek may have had with the party from whom he obtained the baseball card was a separate matter from his transaction with Fitl, and an investigation into the source of the altered card would not have minimized Fitl’s damages. ..................................................................................................................................................
Question Who has the burden to show a breach, or its absence, in cases involving attempts to recover damages for accepted goods?
“What If the Facts Were Different?” Suppose that Fitl and Strek had included in their deal a clause requiring Fitl to give notice of any defect in the card within “7 days to 1 month” of its receipt. Would the result have been different? Why or why not?
Explanation / Answer
In such a case, the onus on accepting the breach should ideally lie with the source of goods, which sold the card to Strek. But the law clearly states that to simplify the process and minimize the time and effort of the system, the terms agreed between the current parties, here, Fitl and Strek, should be considered while deciding upon the case. It is also expected from the seller to verify and reveal to the buyer the facts related to the goods which have been delivered to them by the supplier. This transparency of information helps in making the trade easier and cost effective due to reduced chances of return/replacement. Hence, to summarise, it is important for the seller to check for a breach, rectify it and avoid the possibility of its passage to the end user/ consumer. The distributors should not be responsible for the same to the people who accept their goods,i.e., their agents.
As per the nature of the good which was sold, it is fair to assume that the result would have been different if the clause of giving notice within "7 days to 1 month" of receipt had been included in the deal. The good is not a consumable or a daily used item which do not require much involvement of the buyer. It is a collectible item which needs a considerable time and research to reach a purchase decision. Such clauses invoke some doubt over authenticity and compel the client to verify it as soon as it is purchased. Had this clause been ignored, the seller could have challenged the decision with the proof that even he knew about the possibility of occurence of some defects in such valuable items. The carelessness of buyer over the same could have been appealed and no compensation could have been sanctioned to Mr. Fitl.