The opinion
STATE OF MAINE
CUMBERLAND, ss.
sf
Michael Malual,
Appellant
Vv. ORDER
Abdinasib Abdi,
Respondent
rte 7% aps
This case comes before the court on Defendant Abdinasib Abdi’s appeal of
a June 24, 2004 judgment in a ‘small claims action (POR-SC-04- -282), pursuant to
Rule 11 of the Maine Rules of Smal] Claims Procedure.
FACTS
On March 30, 2004, Defendant Abdinasib Abdi (Abdi) sold Michael
Malual (Plaintiff) a 1990 Toyota Camry for $850. Plaintiff test-drove the car
before paying for it. After Mr. Abdi had collected the money in full from
Plaintiff's wife, Plaintiff took the car to a mechanic, who told him the car was
defective. Shortly after the sale, Plaintiff asked Mt. Abdi to return his money.
Mr. Abdi told Plaintiff he would not refund the money, which had been spent.
On June 24, 2004, Plaintiff brought the matter before the Small Claims
Court, seeking his $850, plus costs. The District Court (J. Horton) awarded the
Plaintiff $300, plus $60 in costs. To date, Mr. Abdi has not paid the Plaintiff any
part of this award, and brings this appeal pursuant to Maine Rule of Small
Claims Procedure 11. Mr. Abdi argues that the car was sold with no
representations made as to its quality. Mr. Abdi argues that Plaintiff entered the
deal freely and had ample time to determine the quality of the car before
agreeing to buy it. Mr. Abdi also argues he has no ability to repay the Plaintiff.
Mr. Abdi failed to appear at the hearing to pursue his appeal.
DISCUSSION
Where a jury trial de novo is not requested, a defendant may appeal from
a judgment of the District Court in a small claims action only on questions of
law. M.R.S.C.P. 11(d)(1), (2). The District Court's findings of fact are entitled toa
deferential standard of review and will not be overturned unless clearly
erroneous. Morin Bldg. Prod. Co. v. Atlantic Design, 615 A.2d 239 (Me. 1992). These
findings must be upheld unless there is no competent evidence to support them.
See Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A. 2d 978. See also Martin v, Brown, 650 A.2d 937 (Me.
1994). The record on appeal will consist of “[t]he original papers and exhibits
filed in District Court and a copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of
the District Court, together with any transcript made [based on electronic
recordings]... MLR. Civ. P. 76F(a).
Here, there is no transcript, but the record contains exhibits from the small
claims hearing, the pleadings and responsive statements in the form of letters
from both parties. The exhibits include documents showing Mr. Abdi bou ght the
Camry March 3, 2004, at a car auction under express “as is-no warranty” terms,
and with notice that the car would not pass a New Hampshire inspection. Mr.
Abdi was also issued a “notice of sale of unsafe motor vehicle,” that stipulated
the car had “unknown defects.” About three weeks later, on March 30, 2004, he
sold the same vehicle to Plaintiff.
The sale of a motor vehicle is a “sale of goods” governed by the provisions
of Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code. 11 M.R.S.A. § 101 et seq. Under the
Code, representations or descriptions made by the seller to the buyer about the
item for sale that become part of the basis of the bargain, can create an express
warranty that the item will conform to that representation or description.
1IM.R.S.A. § 2-313 (2004). Furthermore, under Maine law, a seller has an
obligation to act in good faith during a transaction. 11 M.RS.A. § 1-203 (2004). A
failure to act in good faith “makes unavailable, under the particular
circumstances, a remedial right or power.” Id. at cmt. The Code defines “good
faith” as “honesty in fact... in the transaction concerned.” ILM.RS.A. § 1-
201(19). “Good faith is a question of fact and the trial court’s determination will
not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.” Woods v. Bath Indus. Sales, 549 A.0d
1129, 1132 (Me. 1988),
Here, on the record on appeal, it is not clearly erroneous for the District
Court to find Mr. Abdi did not transact with the Plaintiff in good faith when he
sold him a car Mr. Abdi knew to be defective, and refused to refund the
Plaintiff's money when those defects emerged shortly after the date of sale. Nor
is it an error of law to find that, in the absence of good faith, Mr. Abdi does not
retain the full benefit of his bargain.
This Court AFFIRMS the judgment of the District Court in Plaintiff
Michael Malual’s small claims action. The clerk is directed to make copies of all
Justice, Superior Court
Date Filed_August 16, 2004
Action
MICHAEL MALUAL
Appeal from Lower Court
CUMBERLAND
County
Docket No. __ AP-04«43
ABDINASIB ABDI
VS.
Plaintiff’s Attorney
(PRO SE)
Michael Malual
39 Monroe Court
Portland, ME 04101
Defendant’s Attorney
(PRO SE)
Abdinasib Abdi
82 Maple St., #2D
Lewiston, ME 04240
Date of
Entry
2004
Aug. 19 Received 8-12-04,
Defendant's Notice of Appeal to Superior Court filed.
won All paperwork received from 9th District Court, Division of Southern
Cumberland County (District Court docket no. POR-SC--04-282)
Aug. 31 On 8-31-04, oo
Briefing schedule mailed. Appellant's brief due 9-21-04.
Sept 14 Received 9-14-04:
Appellants Brief filed.
Oct. 18 | Received 10-18-04:
Reply Brief Filed.
2005
Jan. 31 On 1-28-05.
Hearing held on District court Appeal.
Court denies appeal orally. Court to prepare order.
Cole, J. Presiding. Tape # 2466 Index 2261-2356
Feb. 1 Received 2-1-05.
Order filed. (Cole, J.)
This court affirms the judgment of the
Michael Malual's, small claims action.
copies of all title documents concerning
originals to Plaintiff, Michael Malual.
2-1-05 copy mailed to Michael Malual and Abdinasib Abdi
District Court in Plaintiff,
The clerk is directed to make
the car and return the