## Facts

- James England, a farmer, bought eight bred gilts from Robert A. Leithoff on April 21, 1979, for $1,760 ($220 each) after seeing an advertisement.
- England told Leithoff he would not buy the animals if they had been through a sale barn; Leithoff stated they had not.
- Leithoff had in fact purchased the same gilts at a sale barn in Sargent, Nebraska, eight days earlier.
- Shortly after delivery, the gilts farrowed; multiple litters were stillborn, and only 11 pigs were delivered alive from all eight gilts.
- A livestock-equipment dealer examined the gilts and opined they had leptospirosis, a disease associated with sale barns; he also testified that industry practice strongly disfavors purchasing breeding females that have been through a sale barn.
- A veterinarian examined dead pigs and testified the pigs were born dead and, in his opinion, the gilts suffered from a swine disease that causes abortions or stillbirths and reduces breeding value.
- England sued solely for breach of express warranty under Nebraska’s U.C.C., not for fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether Leithoff’s statement that the gilts had not come from a sale barn was an affirmation of fact that created an express warranty under Nebraska U.C.C. § 2-313.
2. Whether the evidence supported findings that the warranty was breached, the gilts were diseased at sale, and the breach caused England’s damages.
3. What deference an appellate court must give to a trial court’s factual findings in a law action tried without a jury.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for England.
- The court held the “not from a sale barn” representation was an express warranty that became part of the basis of the bargain.
- The court held the evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the warranty was breached and that the breach supported the damage award.
- Applying the standard of review for a bench-tried law action, the court declined to reweigh conflicting evidence and would not disturb factual findings unless clearly wrong.

## Legal Principles

- Under Nebraska U.C.C. § 2-313, a seller’s affirmation of fact relating to goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty.
- An express-warranty claim does not require proof of fraudulent intent; liability turns on falsity of the warranted fact, breach, and resulting damages.
- Industry practice and expert testimony may support the materiality of a warranted fact and the inference that breach caused the buyer’s loss.
- In a law action tried to the court without a jury, the trial court’s findings have the effect of a jury verdict and are not set aside on appeal unless clearly wrong; appellate courts do not resolve conflicts in the evidence or weigh credibility.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability and damages because the seller’s assurance about the gilts’ sale-barn origin constituted an express warranty central to the transaction, the assurance was false, and the evidence permitted the trial court to find that the animals’ condition and resulting reproductive losses supported breach and causation under the U.C.C. standard for express warranties.


England v. Leithoff, 323 N.W.2d 98 (Neb. 1982)