## Facts

- A.B. Parker bought a Ford truck from Bell Ford, Inc.
- Soon after the purchase, Parker complained to Bell Ford that the truck’s tires were wearing excessively.
- Bell Ford arranged for an outside alignment shop to attempt to fix the tire-wear problem.
- The alignment work did not correct the problem, and the excessive tire wear continued.
- After the repair attempt failed, Parker did not return to Bell Ford to report that the problem persisted.
- Parker also did not make any complaint to the manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, Inc.
- Parker later sued Bell Ford and Ford Motor Company for warranty-related relief.
- After suit was filed, it was discovered that the excessive tire wear was caused by a defective wheel housing.
- At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for Bell Ford and Ford Motor Company.
- Parker appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a buyer who accepts goods and claims breach of warranty is barred from recovery when he fails to give the seller (and, on these facts, the manufacturer) reasonable notice of the breach before filing suit, as required by UCC § 2-607(3)(a) (as adopted in Alabama).

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for Bell Ford and Ford Motor Company.
- The court held that Parker did not provide reasonable notice of breach after the attempted repair failed and before he sued.
- Because notice was a required element of a warranty remedy after acceptance, Parker’s failure to give notice barred recovery as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under UCC § 2-607(3)(a), after a buyer accepts goods, the buyer must notify the seller of an alleged breach within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers (or should discover) it, or the buyer is barred from any remedy.
- Notice is required to give the seller a fair chance to investigate the complaint, attempt a cure, and prepare a defense while facts are still fresh.
- When a seller arranges a repair and the defect continues, the buyer must give further notice that the problem remains; an initial complaint does not necessarily satisfy the notice requirement for a continuing defect.
- If the evidence permits only one conclusion—that legally sufficient notice was not given—the court may decide the issue as a matter of law and remove the case from the jury by directed verdict.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the dealer and manufacturer because, although the buyer complained early and the dealer arranged an attempted repair, the buyer did not notify the defendants that the defect continued and did not give reasonable notice of breach before filing suit, which barred his warranty remedies under UCC § 2-607(3)(a).


Associates Loan Co., (N.S.L.) v. Walker, 425 So.2d 1101 (1983)