WEST COAST AIRLINES, INC. V. MINER'S AIRCRAFT & ENGINE SERVICE, INC.
66 Wash.2d 513 (1965)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Miner's (D) sought review of a judgment in favor of West (P), in P's
replevin action.
FACTS: P purchased aircraft engines 'A' and 'B.' They were delivered with all existing
logbooks, engine build-up and repair records, change records and other documents required by
FAA. P sealed each engine in a large metal storage container, or 'engine can'. P kept
approximately 23 spare engines in the same hangar. None was stored in an 'engine can'. P
asked Junk Traders to pick up the 'cans' along the fence. When the job was completed, Junk
Traders had salvaged four truckloads of sealed 'cans' and one truckload of 'can' halves and
other miscellaneous scrap. Junk Traders paid West Coast 2 cents a pound for 20,370 pounds of
scrap metal. Wholly unknown to either P or Junk Traders, the two sealed 'cans' containing
engines 'A' and 'B' were loaded by Junk Traders' driver. P continued in possession of all
documents required by the FAA. Junk Traders began to cut the 'cans' into scrap. The engines
were discovered and Junk Traders set them aside in their 'cans'. D visited the junkyard and
found the two engines still in the 'cans'. D knew that the engines had belonged to P and
also knew the required paper work needed. D knew that the engines had a value of
approximately $3,500 each and that they were not mere scrap metal. He knew that Junk Traders
was wholly unaware of the character and value of the engines. He also had reason to know
that Junk did not possess the documents required by the FAA. D 'purchased' the two engines
and paid $ 125, based upon their combined weight as scrap metal. He did not ask for the
required logs and maintenance papers. Before Junk Traders paid for the two engines, D called
West Coast and attempted to obtain the necessary records for engine 'A'. D offered the
employee a jug of booze. P realized that either engine was missing. After expressing some
alarm to D, P immediately called Junk Traders in an effort to correct the mistake. Junk
Traders visited D at his place of business and advised him of the mistake. D refused to
return the engines. Junk Traders returned D's check as soon as they received it. P sued D
and the trial court return of the two engines. D was given a judgment against Junk Traders
for $100 and, in turn, Junk Traders was given a judgment of $175 against P. Clark, who D
purported to sell one of the engines to receive a judgment against D for the return of his
seven cylinder lapping machines plus $100 for amounts expended. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment