Explore BrainMass
Share

Reject or Revoke

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Tammie contracted with Kristine to manufacture, sell, and deliver to Kristine and put in running order a certain machine. After Tammie set up the machine and put it in running order, Kristine found it unsatisfactory and notified Tammie tht she rejected the machine. She continued to use it for three months but continually complained of its defective condition. At the end of the three months, she notified Tammie to come and get it. Has Kristine lost her right (a) to reject the machine? (b) to revoke acceptance of the machine?

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 8:39 am ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/reject-or-revoke-547923

Solution Preview

The main element in this scenario is the time period. Tammie contracted with Kristine, Kristine found the goods unsatisfactory right after the goods were ready for use. Tammie then notified Kristine that she rejected the machine. Because she was notified within a reasonable time period, which was just after set up, we can consider the rejection as legally binding. Tammie then continued to use the machine, even after rejecting it, and then wanted to return the machine after 90 days. It can be reasonably argued that three months is not a reasonable time period. I am not aware of any retailers or businesses that accept returns on goods after a period of three ...

Solution Summary

This solution explains if Kristine has lost her right to reject the machine, or to revoke acceptance of the machine. All necessary legal elements are thoroughly discussed in this solution.

$2.19
See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

On January 1, Ted, a dealer, sold and delivered a new high definition television to Betsy, a consumer. Two weeks later, Besty discovered a latent defect in the television, which would turn on and off automatically, at 2 minute intervals. Betsy revoked acceptance of the television, and demanded a new one or her money back. Ted argued that it was customary for a seller to "cure" defects of this nature, by replacing any defective parts. Who is right?

2. In 5 previous contracts, Sam tendered and Bonnie accepted without rejection both 36 and 37 inch steel. The contract description specified "37 inch steel". In the 6th contract, the description specified "36 inch steel". In a delivery under the 6th contract, Sam tendered 37 inch steel. Bonnie rejected Sam's tender of 37 inch steel and Sam sued Bonnie for breach of contract. Who will win the case? Be sure to clearly state your analysis and to cite to the applicable UCC rules.

3. Sally Seller contracted to manufacture office chairs for Bill Buyer for $25,000. Before Sally Seller began performance, Bill Buyer repudiated the contract. Sue Seller immediately canceled the contract, but still decided to manufacture the office chairs. The chairs were completed at a cost of $19,000, but Sally Seller, after reasonable effort, was not able to find anyone to buy them. Sally Seller wants to sue Bill Buyer for the $25,000 contract price. Bill argues that Sally failed to mitigate damages and is limited in damages
to the difference between the contract and market price at the time and place of breach.

Can Sally Seller recover the price, or is she limited to damages according to the Section 2-708(1) formula?

4. Sam sold nails to Bob for $10,000, shipment FOB point of shipment. Sam shipped screws â?" nonconforming goods which Bob, if the defect was discovered, could have rejected. However, Bob accepted the screws and did not discover the defect until later. When Bob discovered the defect, Bob promptly telephoned Sam and revoked his acceptance. That same day, the screws were destroyed by fire while in Bob's warehouse. Bob's insurance covered $5,000 of the loss. Sam sues Bob for the price of the screws, $10,000. What is the outcome of the case? Be sure to cite to the applicable UCC rules.

Instructions: Write a complete answer to the question. Make sure you answer all parts of each question and provide a detailed legal analysis of your answer. Clearly state the applicable UCC sections and any assumptions.

The paper must include a detailed analysis of the relevant issues, and clearly state the applicable UCC sections.

1. On January 1, Ted, a dealer, sold and delivered a new high definition television to Betsy, a consumer. Two weeks later, Besty discovered a latent defect in the television, which would turn on and off automatically, at 2 minute intervals. Betsy revoked acceptance of the television, and demanded a new one or her money back. Ted argued that it was customary for a seller to "cure" defects of this nature, by replacing any defective parts. Who is right?

2. In 5 previous contracts, Sam tendered and Bonnie accepted without rejection both 36 and 37 inch steel. The contract description specified "37 inch steel". In the 6th contract, the description specified "36 inch steel". In a delivery under the 6th contract, Sam tendered 37 inch steel. Bonnie rejected Sam's tender of 37 inch steel and Sam sued Bonnie for breach of contract. Who will win the case? Be sure to clearly state your analysis and to cite to the applicable UCC rules.

3. Sally Seller contracted to manufacture office chairs for Bill Buyer for $25,000. Before Sally Seller began performance, Bill Buyer repudiated the contract. Sue Seller immediately canceled the contract, but still decided to manufacture the office chairs. The chairs were completed at a cost of $19,000, but Sally Seller, after reasonable effort, was not able to find anyone to buy them. Sally Seller wants to sue Bill Buyer for the $25,000 contract price. Bill argues that Sally failed to mitigate damages and is limited in damages
to the difference between the contract and market price at the time and place of breach.

Can Sally Seller recover the price, or is she limited to damages according to the Section 2-708(1) formula?

4. Sam sold nails to Bob for $10,000, shipment FOB point of shipment. Sam shipped screws â?" nonconforming goods which Bob, if the defect was discovered, could have rejected. However, Bob accepted the screws and did not discover the defect until later. When Bob discovered the defect, Bob promptly telephoned Sam and revoked his acceptance. That same day, the screws were destroyed by fire while in Bob's warehouse. Bob's insurance covered $5,000 of the loss. Sam sues Bob for the price of the screws, $10,000. What is the outcome of the case? Be sure to cite to the applicable UCC rules.

View Full Posting Details