Practical Products Corp. v. Brightmire

Paul Brightmire (defendant) attempted to purchase a portable generator from Practical Products Corporation (Practical) (plaintiff). However, Brightmire refused to accept the generator when it was delivered to him because he believed that the generator was not the kind that he had ordered and because Practical did not provide a user’s manual for the generator. Practical eventually sued Brightmire in small-claims court for breach of contract, seeking $261 in damages. Brightmire filed a counterclaim for, among other things, breach of contract. After the case was transferred to district court for trial, the district court denied Brightmire’s motion for a directed verdict on Practical’s claim. The jury ruled for Practical on both claims, after which the district court denied Brightmire’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Brightmire appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court should have granted his motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict because he was entitled to reject the generator due to the lack of a user’s manual. Per Brightmire, the purchase contract included an implied requirement that Practical would provide a user’s manual because (1) it was industry custom and usage for major appliances like generators to be accompanied by user’s manuals and (2) under Oklahoma’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), industry custom and usage was part of a contract for the sale of goods. In support of his custom-and-usage contention, Brightmire cited the testimony of two Practical employees.