COSID, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BAY STEEL PRODUCTS CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Cosid seeks to replevy steel from Bay Steel, claiming Bay Steel acquired it under suspicious circumstances that should have triggered a duty to inquire into its origin. The court reverses summary judgment for Bay Steel and remands for trial to determine whether Bay Steel qualifies as a buyer in the ordinary course of business under the UCC, which would give it protection from claims of the true owner.
The court reverses the summary judgment because factual disputes exist regarding whether the suspicious circumstances surrounding the purchase should have put Bay Steel on notice, making it ineligible for UCC protection as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. The case is remanded for full trial on the critical fact issues.
[1] A buyer in the ordinary course of business takes goods free of outstanding title of the true owners.
[2] Circumstances such as a low selling price and unusually attractive credit terms may put a buyer on notice regarding the seller's authority to sell.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“'Buyer in ordinary course of business' means a person who in good faith and without knowledge that the sale to him is in violation of the ownership rights or security interest of a third party in the goods buys in ordinary course from a person in the business of selling goods of that kind”
Establishes the UCC definition of buyer in ordinary course of business, which is central to determining whether Bay Steel has title protection
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCosid claims the steel was purchased under suspicious circumstances, including a low selling price, unusually attractive credit terms, and the fact th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Buyer In Ordinary Course Of Business cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-Bay Steel was granted summary judgment in an action by plaintiff-Cosid to replevy a quantity of steel. We reverse and remand.
Cosid claims the steel in question was bought under suspicious circumstances and that defendant had a duty to inquire further concerning the origin and ownership of the steel. Such an inquiry would have disclosed that Cosid gave no actual authority for the steel’s disposition and that the alleged authority was a forgery. Defendant feels he acquired possession of the steel rightfully and should be allowed to retain possession.
The absence of an investigation, according to plaintiff, would render defendant ineligible for the protection of the U.C.C. offered to buyers in the ordinary course of business.
“(9) ‘Buyer in ordinary course of business’ means a person who in good faith and without knowledge that the sale to him is in violation of the ownership rights or security interest of a third party in the goods buys in ordinary course from a person in the business of selling goods of that kind but does not include a pawnbroker. ‘Buying’ may be for cash or by exchange of other property or on secured or unsecured credit and includes receiving goods or documents of title under a pre-existing contract for sale but does not include a transfer in bulk or as security for or in total or partial satisfaction of a money debt.” (Emphasis supplied.) Section 671.1-201(9), F.S.1969, F.S.A.
The significance of being a buyer in the ordinary course of business is the acquisition of the goods free of the outstanding title of the true owners. See Anderson’s Uniform Commercial Code, 2nd Edition, § 1.201:19 and 1.201:23; Section 671.1-203, F.S.1969, F.S.A.; Atlas Auto Rental Corp. v. Weisberg, 1967, 54 Misc.2d 168, 281 N.Y.S.2d 400 and Correria v. Orlando Bank *275& Trust Company, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 20.
In the instant case the selling price of the steel was low and the credit terms unusually attractive. In addition, for the first time, the sale was not made by the agent in his capacity as such, but by the agent in his personal capacity.
A factfinder may decide that all these facts should have put defendant on notice. It is, therefore, quite possible defendant would not be a buyer in the ordinary course of business. But we do not decide that issue. We do feel that the facts should be examined fully. We reverse and remand for a full trial to determine the critical fact issues involved.
Reversed and remanded.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Gary Aircraft Corp. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 681 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1982)…was informed of the secured creditor’s interest before the purchase, id. at 573, and the court held that Arkansas law, unlike Texas law, provided for constructive notice, id. at 577. Finally, in Cosid, Inc. v. Bay Steel Products Co., Fla.App. 1971, 252 So. 2d 274, the court merely overturned summary judgment for the buyer where he was aware of suspicious circumstances, remanding to allow the fact-finder to determine whether the buyer acted in good faith. . It is not clear how this argument would help Genera…
Authorities Cited
- Correria v. The Orlando Bank & Tr. Co. & William C. Hooker, Jr., 235 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)