Practical Products Corp. v. Brightmire

864 P.2d 330 (1992)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Practical Products Corp. v. Brightmire

Oklahoma Supreme Court
864 P.2d 330 (1992)

Facts

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.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Watt, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership