Miriam issued two checks. The first check was made payable to her neighbor for a used
car that the neighbor sold to Miriam. The second check was a rent payment to Miriam’s
landlord for the current month’s rent.
The car was purchased on the basis of the neighbor’s written assurance that the car had
only 38,000 miles of use. After Miriam took possession of the car, Miriam’s mechanic
checked the vehicle and substantiated that the odometer had been turned back. The car
had actually been used for 79,000 miles. Miriam stopped payment on the check and
offered to return the car. Meanwhile, the neighbor had purchased a computer and had
negotiated Miriam’s check to the vendor in payment. Discouraged by the problems with
the car, Miriam decided to take a vacation. She issued a written stop payment to her
bank on the rent check because she intended to use this money for the vacation.
Although the drawee bank had ample time to act, it made an error and paid the rent
check instead of stopping payment. Two lawsuits resulted. In the first, the vendor of the
computer sued Miriam on the check. In the second, Miriam sued her bank for paying
over her timely stop payment order. Decide both cases.
When a buyer makes a purchase without relying on the seller’s skill and judgment, no
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose exists.