Erb Poultry, Inc. V. CEME

Case Citation: Erb Poultry, Inc. v. CEME, LLC, 20 N.E.3d 1228 (Ohio App 2 Dist. 20140)

Relevant Points of Law:

  1. Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender. It is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller.
  2. Revocation of acceptance must occur … before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects.
  3. Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and if made with knowledge of a non-conformity cannot be revoked.

Verdict: For Erb Poultry, Inc.

Facts and Legal Reasoning:

Erb Poultry, Inc., a distributor of poultry products in Lima, Ohio, and CEME, LLC, with a business as Bank Shots, a restaurant in Trotwood, Ohio, entered into an agreement on January 25 and 27, 2013. CEME ordered chicken wings and “dippers” from Erb, which were delivered on January 28. CEME issued checks in payment for the product but placed a stop-payment order on those checks. Erb contacted CEME to find out a reason for payment deprivation. The products, according to CEME, were damaged, spoiled, out of date, and the wrong sizes. CEME made no supporting documentation or arranged for product returns. In this case, the buyer has three options in case when nonconforming goods are received: reject the goods, revoke acceptance, or accept the goods and recover the damages. Since CEME didn’t arrange a product return, rejection of the order is ineffective since the seller wasn’t notified. The second is irrelevant because CEME did not inform Erb about the issue before any substantial change in condition of the goods, which is not caused by their own defects (Miller 440). In the third case, CEME accepted the goods and proceeded with payment without rejecting them. To conclude, CEME is not entitled to a full refund.

Work Cited

Miller, Roger. Business Law Today, the Essentials: Text and Summarized Cases. Cengage Learning, 2021.