The Gun-Totin’ Harley Buyer and His Damages On February 5, 2007, the plaintiff, Wiley Sharbino, had purchased a 2003 Harley Davidson motorcycle from the defendant, Cooke Family Enterprises, L.L.C., DBA Renegade Harley-Davidson. Mr. Sharbino had filed a lawsuit against the company on September 10, 2007, claiming that within two days of purchasing the motorcycle, it had incurred a broken drive belt. Mr. Sharbino claims when upon returning to the dealership, he was informed that "the drive sprockets on the transmission and the rear wheel of the motorcycle were mismatched, causing the drive belt to break." He stated that the repairs for the motorcycle could not be performed without altering the appearance of the motorcycle and in if this was the case, he would not have purchased the motorcycle had he known of this situation. Mr. Sharbino alleges that the dealership had clearly known of the repair needed prior to the sale of the bike and that it was in bad faith in the deal. Therefore, the plaintiff declares that he is entitled to the sales price, reasonable expenses related to the sale and preservation of the motorcycle, interest, and attorney fees. …show more content…
Having the same principles of law on contracts for the sale of goods and other commercial transactions in most of the 50 states make doing business easier and less expensive. The UCC warranty provision would be that the dealer would be responsible for repairing the motorcycle, replacing it with something that is equivalent, or refunding the money. The dealer should have done a more thorough inspection of the motorcycle before selling it or even advertisement. It is absurd for the dealer to have missed this issue when inspecting the motorcycle and they are accountable for selling a problematic good. The drive belt should not break within two days and will not break and was clearly