Case 18.1 Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. U.S. Golf and Tennis Centers, Inc.
1. What is the perfect tender rule?
The perfect tender rule is under the common law, the seller is obligated to deliver goods that conformed to the terms of the contract in every detail.

2. According to the UCC, what are a buyer’s options if the goods do not conform to the contract? Does a buyer have those same options if the goods conform in every respect? Explain.
The buyer’s options if the goods do not conform to the contract, the buyer or lessee may accept the goods, reject the entire shipment, or accept part and reject part. If the goods conform in every respect the buyer or lessee does not have a right to reject the goods because the buyer or lessee is obligated to accept and pay for the goods according to the terms of the contract (UCC 2-507).

3. In this case, what provision in the parties’ contract was at the heart of their dispute?
The provision in the contract that was at the heart of their dispute was “that the price charged be the lowest available price.”

4. What did the court rule on the dispute between these parties? Why?
The court ruled that the seller (Wilson) fully performed, but the buyer, the company, failed to make any payments. The agreed contract terms, including purchase price were clear. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant (US Golf and Tennis Centers, Inc.) were liable for the goods they received and upheld the contract.

Case 18.2 Maple Farms, Inc. v City School District of Elmira
What if the facts were different? Suppose that the court had ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. How might that ruling have affected the plaintiff’s contracts with other parties?
Many contracts with school existed for Maple Farms to supply milk at a fixed price. With the increased milk prices off 23%, Maple is going to experience a loss of a great deal of money. They attempted to claim commercial impracticability, but for it to occur something unexpected must have occurred and must not have been allocated either by agreement or by custom. The court ruled that Maple Farms was responsible for having knowledge that general inflation in the U.S. is common, based on history. There is no clause to excuse Maple, therefore they did not win this case.

Case 18.3 Fitl v. Strek
What if the facts were different? Suppose the Fitl and Strek had included in their deal a written clause requiring Fitl to give notice of any defect in the card within “7 days to 1 month” of its receipt. Would the result have been different? Why or why not? What might a court award to a buyer who prevails in a dispute such as the one in this case?
If Fitl and Strek had included this requirement in their deal, the court would have favored Strek because of the fact that the terms of the contract were explicitly stated and Fitl did not give notice tll 2 years later. A court might would award the buyer damages up to the price paid for the card or the difference in the mint condition paid for the card and the price of the card in the current condition.

18 IS # 1
Yes, Country does have the right to reject the shipment because under the perfect tender rule the seller has an obligation to ship or tender conforming goods, which the buyer is then obligated to accept and pay for according to the terms of the contract. Under the common law, the seller is obligated to deliver goods that conformed with the terms of the contract in every detail. The exception of the seller’s right to to cure does not apply here, because the seller delivered thirty cases instead of eighty cases at the wrong time.

EOC 18-1 Anticipatory Repudiation
Moore is correct that Hammer’s repudiation released her from her duty to perform under the contract. When a anticipatory repudiation occurs, the non-breaching party has a choice of two responses: 1. treat the repudiation as a final breach by pursuing a remedy. or 2. wait to see if the repudiating party will decide to honor the contract despite the avowed intention to renege (UCC 2-610, 2A-402). In either situation the nonbreaching party may suspend performance. In this situation since Hammer informed Moore that he would not be buying the car from her, therefore, there can be no retraction because the other party has canceled or materially changed position or otherwise indicated the repudiation is final (UCC 2-611).

EOC 18-3 Spotlight on revocation of acceptance
The two requirements for a buyer’s revocation of acceptance are 1)acceptance was based on a reasonable assumption that the nonconforming goods would be cured within reasonable time and 2) the buyer failing to discover that nonconformity existed before acceptance. No, the requirements were not met in this case because the RV broke down after the Waddells accepted/bought and drove it away. In my opinon, I think the court would rule in favor of the dealer (L.V.R.V) since they have upheld their part of the agreement.

EOC 18-5 Breach and Damages
No, there was no breach of contract because no contract existed because Utilty received no compensation back for the fill and they did not charge Chad for the requested 1,500 cubic yards of fill. Damages can only be recovered up to the difference between cubics price and the fair value of the job.

EOC 18-9 Revocation of Acceptance
Revocation of acceptance is when the buyer or lessee exercises the right of rejection of an accepted good. A buyer effectively exercises this option when nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods and if one of the following factors exist:
Acceptance was based on assumption that nonconformity would be fixed by the seller in reasonable time or if the buyer failed to know about the nonconformity existed before acceptance. The facts in this case support this theory as grounds for Miller to recover damages because they were unaware that the goods were absorbed with moisture before they accepted them.

In my opinion, yes there is an ethical basis for allowing a buyer to revoke acceptance of goods and recover damages because there is the possibility that the goods were damaged by the buyer, but they want to get new goods so they say they were damaged before acceptance. On the other hand if the revocation is actually the seller’s mistake, the buyer is in the right to revoke the acceptance.