The University of Michigan runs an agricultural research station. They brought in a new grain dryer for a station. The head of the station is a specialist in drying grains. Seven years later, the grain dryer malfunctioned, causing a fire. The University of Michigan sued the dryer maker for damages in tort for product liability. The dryer maker defended that UM is a merchant under the UCC so therefore could not sue in tort. Its cause of action would be limited to damages allowed under the UCC Who will win?.
In the court case Regents of The University of Minnesota v. Chief Industries, Inc (F. 3d 96–1257 1997) The University brought a products liability deed against manufacturers of grain dryer unit which they had bought, in search to recover for property damage from fire supposedly caused by the unit. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, David S. Doty, J., 907 F.Supp. 1298, approved manufacturers' motion for summary judgment. The University appealed. The Court of Appeals, Beam, Circuit Judge, said that: (1) the university was a "merchant" with reverence to grain dryer unit by asset of its specific knowledge, and therefore was secured under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) from tort recovery against manufacturers for property damage from fire, and (2) the party doesn't have to be a dealer to be considered a "merchant" and therefore subject to UCC's bar of tort claims for damage to other property as effect of commercial transactions.
In the case of Republic Insurance Company v. Broan Manufacturing Co., Inc 960 F.Supp. 1247, 96–40121, (1997). In 1987, James and Mary Bay moved into a residence located at 9079 Danzig Street in Livonia, Michigan. A ceiling fan manufactured by the defendant had been earlier installed in the basement of the home. On July 9, 1994, while the Bay's were away from their property, the ceiling fan's motor detained up and overheated, causing the plastic fan blade to catch a fire.
