James River Equipment Co. v. Beadle County Equipment Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
646 N.W.2d 265 (2002)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
James River Equipment Company (James River) (plaintiff) purchased farm equipment owned by Beadle County Equipment Company (Beadle County) (defendant). The sales contract expressly warranted the accuracy of all representations made by Beadle County. The contract also stated that James River bought the equipment as is and that Beadle County made no representations as to the equipment’s condition. Beadle County gave James River an opportunity to inspect the equipment prior to sale, but James River did not take advantage of that opportunity. After the sale, James River discovered that some of the equipment had usage issues that affected the equipment’s value. James River sued Beadle County for breaching Beadle County’s express warranty. The case was governed by South Dakota’s version of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-316. The trial court ruled that James River’s failure to inspect the equipment, combined with the contract’s as-is clause, negated any express warranty otherwise conveyed by the contract. The trial court entered judgment for Beadle County. James River appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilbur, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.