## Facts

- William D. Connor, an experienced field-trial Black Labrador competitor and judge, negotiated to buy a registered Black Labrador retriever from Jere W. Bogrett, George R. Cassel, and their partnership, Coons Kennels, for field-trial use.
- Connor had observed the dog multiple times, including in competitions where he served as judge.
- Before purchasing, Connor obtained a veterinary examination showing hip dysplasia, with a warning it could progress to osteoarthritis and prevent competition; the veterinarian advised against purchase.
- Connor discussed the condition with Bogrett and proceeded with the purchase for $8,000 ($6,000 paid immediately; $2,000 due about 10 months later).
- After the sale, Connor took possession, entered the dog in field trials, and used or offered it for breeding.
- Months later, the dog’s performance declined; another veterinary exam confirmed osteoarthritis by x-ray.
- Connor attempted to rescind the sale and return the dog; the sellers refused. Connor left the dog at Bogrett’s property and sued for rescission.
- The sellers counterclaimed for the unpaid $2,000 balance and for expenses for the dog’s care/board.

## Issues

1. Whether the notice of appeal was timely where a claim for services remained unresolved until later disposition.
2. Whether the sellers’ statements about the dog’s future competitive ability created an express warranty under U.C.C. § 2-313 (Wyoming § 34-21-230) as part of the “basis of the bargain.”
3. Whether Connor, after taking and using the dog, could revoke acceptance and rescind based on the dog’s later-manifested condition.

## Decision

- The court held the appeal was timely because finality occurred only after the remaining services claim was disposed of by stipulation; the appeal period ran from that event.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the sellers on the counterclaim for the unpaid balance of the purchase price.
- The court rejected rescission, holding that the sellers’ statements about the dog’s potential were opinions/commendation rather than an express warranty.
- The court agreed Connor accepted the dog through post-sale conduct inconsistent with the sellers’ ownership and could not revoke acceptance on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- A judgment is generally not final for appeal purposes while any claim remains pending; the time to appeal runs from disposition of the last unresolved claim.
- Under U.C.C. § 2-313, seller statements amounting to opinion, praise, or commendation do not constitute an express warranty and do not become part of the “basis of the bargain.”
- A buyer’s sophistication, prior observation of the goods, and independent pre-purchase knowledge of risk (including expert advice) weigh against treating optimistic performance statements as warranties.
- Under U.C.C. acceptance rules, taking and using goods for their intended purposes (and other ownership-like acts) constitutes acceptance and restricts later revocation and rescission, particularly where the buyer knew or had reason to know of the alleged defect at acceptance.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the material facts about the nature of the statements and the buyer’s acceptance-related conduct are undisputed and the legal characterization can be resolved as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the sellers, holding that generalized statements about a competition dog’s future ability were non-warranty commendations, and that the buyer’s informed purchase and subsequent extensive use established acceptance that barred revocation and rescission; the appeal was timely because final judgment occurred only after the last claim was dismissed.


Connor v. Bogrett, 596 P.2d 683 (Wyo. 1979)