## Facts

- Timothy Cuchine bought a pickup truck from H.O. Bell, Inc. (the dealer) using a retail installment sales contract.
- The dealer assigned its interest in the installment contract to Ford Motor Credit Company (the finance company/assignee).
- After the purchase, the truck developed significant problems.
- Cuchine repeatedly returned the truck to the dealer for repairs, but the problems were not fixed.
- Cuchine left the truck with the dealer, stopped making payments under the installment contract, and filed suit.
- Cuchine sued both the dealer and Ford Motor Credit for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, seeking rescission or revocation.
- Ford Motor Credit admitted it was the assignee, counterclaimed against Cuchine for the missed installment payments, and then reassigned its interest in the contract back to the dealer.
- Ford Motor Credit moved for summary judgment to dismiss Cuchine’s claims against it; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed Ford Motor Credit.
- Cuchine appealed, relying on contract language (the FTC Holder Notice) stating that any holder is “subject to all claims and defenses” the buyer could assert against the seller, with recovery capped at amounts paid.

## Issues

1. Whether the assignment of a retail installment sales contract, including the FTC Holder Notice and UCC-based “subject to claims and defenses” language, imposes full seller-type contract and warranty liability on the assignee for the dealer’s alleged breaches.
2. Whether the assignee’s reassignment of the contract back to the dealer during the dispute affects the assignee’s liability to the buyer on the buyer’s warranty-based rescission/revocation claims.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing Cuchine’s claims against Ford Motor Credit.
- The court held that assigning the installment contract to Ford Motor Credit did not make the assignee fully liable as though it were the seller for the dealer’s alleged implied-warranty breaches.
- The FTC Holder Notice and UCC assignment rules made the assignee’s right to collect subject to the buyer’s seller-based claims and defenses (and limited recovery to amounts paid), but did not turn the assignee into a substitute seller responsible for the dealer’s performance obligations.
- Because the assignment itself did not impose full contract liability on Ford Motor Credit, the reassignment back to the dealer did not change the result for purposes of the buyer’s affirmative warranty claims against Ford Motor Credit.

## Legal Principles

- An assignment transfers contract rights, but does not, by itself, transfer the assignor’s underlying performance duties to the assignee or make the assignee a guarantor of the assignor’s obligations.
- Under UCC § 9-318 (as adopted in Montana), an assignee’s rights are subject to the terms of the underlying contract and to defenses or claims arising from that contract, but that “subject to” status does not automatically create full affirmative liability for the seller’s breach.
- The FTC Holder Notice preserves the consumer’s ability to assert seller-based claims and defenses against the holder in connection with the holder’s attempt to enforce the contract, and it limits the consumer’s recovery against the holder to amounts paid under the contract.
- A consumer generally may not impose seller-type implied-warranty liability on a contract assignee merely because the assignee took an assignment of the retail installment contract containing the FTC Holder Notice.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held that Ford Motor Credit’s status as assignee of the dealer’s retail installment contract—despite the contract’s FTC Holder Notice and UCC “subject to claims and defenses” framework—did not make Ford Motor Credit fully liable for the dealer’s alleged implied-warranty breaches; the assignee’s exposure was limited to being subject to the buyer’s seller-based claims and defenses in relation to enforcement of the assigned payment obligation, within the contractual cap on recovery.


Cuchine v. H.O. Bell, Inc., 682 P.2d 723 (1984)