Our Client, Mr$.$ Merrill Simms, is being sued by Tom Kelly for breach of an implied warranty of fitness

for a particular purpose in the lawsuit that has been filed as Kelly v$.$ Simms. Mr$.$ Sims placed an ad in a

newspaper, The Daily Post, offering to sell a Ryder $1000$ riding lawn mower for $$1,000\mathrm{.}00.$ Mr$.$ Kelly

responded to the ad and came to Mr$.$ Simms' house to purchase the mower. Mr$.$ Kelly told Mr$.$ Simms

that he needed a good riding mower because he had $21//2$ acres to be mowed once a week. Mr$.$ Simms

responded that, although he had never needed to mow more than an acre, the mower had always done a

good job for him. After discussing the terms, Mr$.$ Kelly purchases the mower for $$900\mathrm{.}00$

One week later, Mr$.$ Kelly called Mr$.$ Simms and informed him that the mower was too small and

underpowered for his needs, and he wanted his money back. Mr$.$ Simms refused and Mr$.$ Kelly has filed

suit in Small Claims Court claiming breach of an Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose.

Mr$.$ Simms' only experience with riding mowers is based on his use of the Ryder $1000.$ He does not

have any special expertise concerning riding mowers, nor does he routinely sell them.

At this point, we do not know if Mr$.$ Simms has any documentation to indicate whether the terms of the

sale were reduced to writing.

ASSIGNMENT: Worth $25$ Points

CASE LAW: Locate a case called Beam v$.$ Cullett, $615$ P$\mathrm{.}2$d $1196($Or$.1980).$

To decipher this: these numbers and abbreviations are the "case citation" and are basically the

"address" for finding the case. This citation indicates that in Volume $615$ of the Pacific Reporter

$($which contains court decisions and reasoning$),$ the second series, on page $1196,$ this case was

decided by the Oregon Supreme Court in $1980.$ You can locate this case by simply Googling the

case name, or the citation, which is what all of these numbers and abbreviations represent.

Below is the STATUTORY LAW: From the Oregon Statutes $($ORS$)$

ORS $72\mathrm{.}3150$ Implied Warranty; fitness for a particular purpose;

"Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the

goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select of furnish

suitable goods, there is$,$ unless excluded or modified under ORS $72\mathrm{.}3610,$ an implied warranty that

the goods shall be fit for such purpose."

Using the Case Law you see in Beam v$.$ Cullett combined with the statement of Statutory Law

answer the following:

a$.$ Based upon the fact pattern above, indicate if you think Mr$.$ Simms will prevail in his case

against Mr$.$ Kelly.

b$.$ Why or who not?

c$.$ Explain your reasoning and how the Beam v$.$ Cullett case and the Oregon Statute influenced your

decision.