## Facts

- James G. Fitl purchased a 1952 Mickey Mantle Topps baseball card from Mark Strek, a sports-card dealer, for $17,750 after Strek represented it was in near-mint condition.
- Fitl received the card in Omaha, Nebraska, and stored it in a safe-deposit box.
- Nearly two years later, Fitl submitted the card to a professional grading service (PSA), which reported it was ungradable because it had been discolored and altered.
- Fitl notified Strek by letter shortly after receiving PSA’s opinion and stated he intended to pursue legal action.
- Strek responded that any unconditional return should have occurred within a customary grace period (7 days to 1 month) so he could confront his source.
- Fitl obtained a second professional opinion (ASA), which concluded the card had been refinished and trimmed.
- Fitl sued, alleging Strek knew of the alteration and concealed it, and that Fitl reasonably relied on Strek’s status as a reputable dealer.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Neb. U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a), Fitl’s notice of breach—given about two years after purchase but promptly after professional discovery—was provided “within a reasonable time” after he discovered or should have discovered the breach.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment for Fitl.
- The court held that Fitl’s notice was given within a reasonable time under the circumstances.
- The court upheld the trial court’s finding that Fitl was not required to discover the alteration earlier through immediate investigation.
- Fitl was awarded $17,750 plus costs.

## Legal Principles

- Under Neb. U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a), a buyer who accepts goods must notify the seller of breach within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the breach, or the buyer is barred from any remedy.
- “Reasonable time” depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of the action and transaction. Neb. U.C.C. § 1-204(2).
- The notice requirement serves to: (1) allow the seller an opportunity to cure or adjust to reduce damages; (2) allow the seller to learn the facts and prepare for negotiation or defense; and (3) provide a practical terminal point for liability.
- A buyer may rely on a seller’s affirmative factual representation when verifying falsity would require investigation; the buyer is not necessarily required to conduct specialized testing immediately to preserve remedies.
- In assessing timeliness, courts consider whether the seller shows actual prejudice from the timing of notice, including loss of cure opportunities, impaired investigation, or diminished ability to pursue third parties.

## Conclusion

The court held that notice sent promptly after a professional evaluation revealed a latent alteration in a collectible card satisfied the U.C.C.’s “reasonable time” requirement, even though nearly two years had passed since the sale, and affirmed recovery of the purchase price because the altered card was found to be valueless.


Fitl v. Strek, 269 Neb. 51, 690 N.W.2d 605 (Neb. 2005)