Garfinkel v. Lehman Floor Covering Co.
New York District Court
302 N.Y.S. 2d 167 (1969)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Murray Garfinkel (plaintiff) purchased carpet from Lehman Floor Covering Co. (Lehman) (defendant). Immediately after the installation, Garfinkel observed problems with the carpet. According to Lehman’s expert, the problem was caused by pressure when the carpet was on the roller. On two separate occasions, Lehman sent workers to Garfinkel’s house to fix the problem. Lehman’s expert stated that the problem was fixed, but discoloration emerged, likely the result of heavy foot traffic and a common occurrence with velvet carpet such as Garfinkel’s. Garfinkel denied that the initial problem had been fixed. Garfinkel eventually wrote to Lehman, rejecting the carpet and demanding its removal. Lehman neither removed the carpet nor refunded the purchase price. Garfinkel filed suit, relying on Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-602, which obligated a buyer, after rejecting goods, to hold the goods with reasonable care for a time period sufficient for the seller to remove them. Lehman argued that Garfinkel’s use and possession of the carpet barred his right of recission and right to recover the purchase price.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Donovan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.