International Harvester Co. v. Glendenning
Texas Court of Appeals
505 S.W.2d 320, 87 A.L.R.3d 1, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 837 (1974)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
In the 1950s, Don Glendenning (defendant) owned an International Harvester dealership. Later, Glendenning worked as an International Harvester salesman before becoming a farmer and frequent trader of farm equipment. In 1971, Glendenning bought three tractors from Jack L. Barnes, another International Harvester dealer. Glendenning paid $16,000 in cash for all three, which were worth about $22,500. Barnes indicated in the order form and the bill of sale, which Glendenning signed, that in addition to the cash, Glendenning had traded in four other tractors valued at $8,700. Glendenning admitted that he traded in no tractors, that he knew a great deal about International Harvester’s floor-plan pricing method of supplying tractors to dealers and retaining a security interest, and that falsifying the transaction documents was likely to mislead International Harvester and other creditors. Nevertheless, when an International Harvester representative called Glendenning about the deal, he lied and affirmed that he had traded in the tractors. International Harvester Company and International Harvester Credit (International) (plaintiffs) sued Glendenning for wrongful conversion of the three tractors. Glendenning argued that damages were improper, because he was a buyer in the ordinary course of business. The jury agreed, and International appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 787,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.