Effect of acceptance
- notice of breach
- burden of establishing breach after acceptance
- notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over
Source:
Section 72.6070 — Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors072.html
.
Notes of Decisions
When the facts are undisputed the appellate court must rule as a matter of law that the notice was or was not timely. Metro Inv. Corp. v. Portland Rd. Lbr. Yard, Inc., 263 Or 76, 501 P2d 312 (1972)
Ordinarily, whether or not the notice was timely is a question of fact for the trier of fact and a finding on such issue will not be disturbed on appeal. Metro Inv. Corp. v. Portland Rd. Lbr. Yard, Inc., 263 Or 76, 501 P2d 312 (1972)
Where the buyer’s initial notice satisfies the statute, his failure to renew his complaint for two years does not act as a statute of limitations and inflexibly cut off his right to assert his claim. Metro Inv. Corp. v. Portland Rd. Lbr. Yard, Inc., 263 Or 76, 501 P2d 312 (1972)
Provision for buyer to give seller notice of breach of warranty suit makes no change in law requiring proof of facts establishing right of indemnity, and contemplates no duty to defend in advance of such proof. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Motors, 264 Or 362, 505 P2d 1137 (1973)
Seller, who was notified of defects in lumber within one month from date that first batch of large shipment of lumber was processed through buyer’s dry kiln, received timely notice within meaning of this section. Oregon Lumber v. Dwyer Overseas Timber Products, 280 Or 437, 571 P2d 884 (1977)