947 Words2 Pages

McCaulley v. Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. Court of Appeals of Nebraska 21 Neb.App. 125, 838 N.W.2d 38 (2013) Facts: In April 2008, Richard and Michelle McCaulley went to Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. (NFM) to buy some furniture. The items selected were to be special ordered by NFM and the total price was quoted at $10,770.70 through the phone by a sales associate. The McCaulleys accepted the price and paid a deposit of $3,500 by credit card. However, no documents were signed to finalize the deal and the salesperson did not mention any additional terms of conditions regarding pricing errors. Later, the McCaulleys received an invoice of $13,240.70 for an order on May 6th 2008. Michelle called NFM to complain and was sent a revised invoice of $10,840.70 which was still more expensive, but she accepted it. In August 2008, NFM sent the McCaulleys another invoice of $14,550 and told them that NFM did not have to honor the agreement, because of the pricing error and a provision concerning this error printed in the back of the invoices the McCaulleys received. NFM eventually refunded the deposit to the McCaulleys’ credit card without informing them. On September 26th 2008, the McCaulleys filed a complained to seek declaratory relief and damages on the basis that NFM breached the sales contract. On October 24th 2008, NFM answered that the pricing error clause on the invoices invalidated the complaint and the fact that Richard and Michelle took no action to retender the deposit led to the rescission of the contract. In April 27th 2012, the district court ruled in favor of NFM. The McCaulleys appealed, alleging that there were several errors in the trial court’s judgment regarding the terms and conditions in the parties’ sales contract. ... ... middle of paper ... ...e a loss otherwise. The management’s lack of legal knowledge might have led them to assume that it was the McCaulleys’ responsibility to read all the terms and conditions, and simply refunding the deposit would satisfy these terms. In my opinion, NFM, like many other businesses, may have believed in consumers’ naivety. NFM did not foresee that the McCaulleys would bring the issue to court and appeal the trial court’s decision. The company managers did not follow the golden rule of treating others like they would like to be treated, and failed to consider the public disclosure test and the universalization test. As a result, the McCaulleys received only frustration in return for their patience in doing business with NFM. Had NFM had a clear formal policy about representing the contract terms to customers prior to billing them, the situation would have been different.

Open Document