Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond

Exercise 2

Draper, the plaintiff, contracted with Meiners, a dealer in farm equipment, to buy a Minneapolis- Moline tractor and a new plow after trading in an old tractor and an old plow plus a cash payment of $5,300. The contract also required the dealer to install a cab and a radio on the tractor before delivery. The defendant, who was the manufacturer of farm equipment, delivered the tractor to the dealer in January, but not the cab because it was not in stock. In the meantime, the dealer showed Draper the tractor and he was told it was his. The tractor was even identified as his by giving it a customer number (804). In February, the completion of a routine audit disclosed the dealer to be greatly in arrears for substantial sums of money owed to Minneapolis-Moline (the defendant). The defendant then repossessed all its products on the dealer's premises, including the tractor that had been set aside for Draper. Draper never did receive the tractor. He had to use his old tractor for spring plowing and incurred unexpected expenses of $400, which would not have happened with the new tractor. Consequently, Draper sued the defendant (Minneapolis-Moline) for this amount. The defendant claimed that the tractor did not belong to Draper and therefore was not responsible for paying the $400. Is the defendant (Minneapolis-Moline) correct? (100 Ill. App. 2d 324, 241 N.E.2d 342)