Ashley Hartness, Appellant v. Rick Nuckles D/b/a Restoration Plus, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed the judgment against Hartness on his warranty, unjust-enrichment, and conversion claims. It held that if warranties exist in a services contract, the UCC notice requirement applies by analogy, and Hartness's first notice was his complaint filed thirty-three months after receiving the vehicle. The court also held that Hartness sought expectation damages rather than restitution for unjust enrichment and failed to prove a reasonable approximation of Nuckles's gain, while the conversion finding was not clearly erroneous. Justice Baker concurred on the narrower ground that damages were unproven, and Justice Hart dissented, arguing that the court improperly addressed an advisory warranty issue and that the case should be remanded to determine damages.