Untitled Document

7. Here a court will conclude that no acceptance has taken place, despite the signature under the "ACCEPTED" stamp. Therefore, the attempt by Circuit City to argue for an inadequate revocation of acceptance skirts the real issue. Look at 2-606 and you will see that none of the three applies to B's actions. She didn't signify, after a reasonable opportunity to inspect, that the goods were conforming; she didn't fail to make an effective rejection, nor did she do acts inconsistent with the seller's ownership--even though the seller might like to argue that possession is such an act.

8. This problem is meant to probe 2-606(2), which I really didn't mention in class. Let's take things one step at a time. The first place to begin is 2-601. The goods as delivered were non-conforming goods. Thus, the options for B were three: reject the whole, accept the whole or accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest. Since 2-606(2) says that acceptance of a part of the unit is acceptance of the whole, we must investigate what a commercial unit might be. That definition is in 2-105(6). You really need to study the wording closely before concluding whether the individual sweaters set aside were commercial units or not. You may not be able to tell without knowing the practices of the industry. In any case, if the individual non-conforming sweaters were not commercial units, B has accepted them. That doesn't leave her without remedy. Note 2-607(3). It just means that the buyer has to discover and notify the seller of the breach within a reasonable time or "be barred from any remedy." So, there will be a remedy, even if the sweaters are accepted.

9-12. These are the drapes questions and they implicate various provisions of 2-602. In Question 9, B has done all that she is legally required to do. She has properly rejected under 2-602(1) and her only duties are spelled out in 2-602(2). Is a written notice of rejection necessary? There is nothing in Article 2 that would require it. Under Question 10, B has no obligation to do as S has requested or demanded. See 2-602(2). Now, we are assuming that B is not a merchant, and the facts give the impression that she is not. Even if B was a merchant, which would implicate 2-603, she may have no more duties. The merchant is only required to follow reasonable instructions when "the seller has no agent or place of business at the market of rejection." 2-603(1). Question 11 attempts to probe 2-604 and its relation to 2-602. Because the Cmt to 2-604 says that "This is not a 'merchant's' section and the options are pure options given to merchant and nonmerchant buyers alike," the words of the section would apply in our situation. But there may be a little tension with 2-602, which gives the impression that the only duty incumbent upon a purchaser who rightly rejects is to store them for the seller. Yet, I think that this section applies for the facts of Question 11. Then the buyer "may store the rejected goods for the seller's account or reship them to him or resell them for the seller's account with reimbursement as provided in the preceding section." If you were B's attorney, however, you should advise against giving them to charity. This would be an act inconsistent with the seller's ownership, and might be construed therefore as a late acceptance. Question 12 probes the interesting issue that the tender of non-conforming goods ought not to work a hardship to the buyer if it will take a while for her to replace the goods with a conforming tender. An argument could be made under 2-602 that letting the curtains hang for a while is actually a good means of holding them with "reasonable care," since drapes are made to be hung, and a short time use should not damage them. However, after a "reasonable time," and your guess on reasonability is as good as mine, a court would probably see those hanging drapes as accepted drapes.

13-14. The last two questions are meant to explore the issue of tender. We refer, then, to 2-504. The obligation of the seller is to "put th egoods in the possession of such a carrier and make such a contract for their transportation as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and other circumstances of the case." 2-504(a). A good case can be made that failure to deliver the goods properly to the carrier means that no proper tender can be made under 2-503. Question 14 is interesting because it implicates the last words of 2-504. "Failure to notify the buyer under paragraph (c) or to make a proper contract under paragraph (a) is a ground for rejection only in material delay or loss ensues." Has there been a failure to make a proper contract under (a)? Yes. But, has there been loss? No. Has proper tender been made? Probably yes, even though if you were the lawyer for S, you would be well advised to tell them to be a little more circumspect in shipping its goods.