Performance of the Sales Contract 1. No. The fact that the driver refused to let Sarah inspect the car before receiving a certified check for the balance due, and then unloaded the car and gave Sarah the title to the car after receiving the check, suggests that the parties agreed that Sarah was not entitled to inspect the car before payment against documents of title.

2. Assuming that Sarah was not entitled to the inspection of the car before payment and that she discovered the scratches and lack of basic features such as the CD player when receiving the car, she could have rejected the car without payment arguing that the non-conformity was obvious even without inspection. Now, if Sarah noticed the non-conformity when inspecting the car after the carrier left, she still could have demanded the dealer to provide a car meeting the contract terms arguing that the payment before inspection did not constitute acceptance of the car or deprived her from inspecting the car or pursuing remedies against the dealer.

3. The fact that Sarah discovered that the car had the tendency to stall and took it in numerous occasions to the dealer for repair, indicates that she decided to keep the car. Sarah still has the right to revoke her acceptance arguing that a car that stalls and have to be restarted in a traffic light has a serious problem and therefore represents a very low value. She also can argue that dealer has failed to fix the problem despite the numerous unsuccessful attempts and that she has given them too many opportunities. However, Sarah must communicate as soon as possible to the dealer her intend to revoke the acceptance to make it effective. Consequently, if Sarah is able to revoke her acceptance, she can return the car and receive a new car or her money back. In fact she could seek reimbursement of all the expenses incurred during the process. “In case Waddell vs. L.V.R.V the court ordered Wheelers the return of all the Waddell’s out-off-pocket expenses”

4. No. If the dealer knew the vehicle he was delivering did not conform to the contract and was damaged, he had an unethical behavior. As part of the deontological approach, and applying three basic logical tests proposed by Immanuel Kant under the ethical formalism, the dealer actions are not ethical. First, if an action is moral it must be moral for everyone to be actually moral. So, the act of dishonesty showed by the dealer may be ethical for him but not for the rest of population therefore cannot be accepted as universally moral. Second, an action is moral only if the person does not use others as means to achieve his own interests. Clearly, the dealer is not treating Sarah with respect by not being honest about the car she was buying. Third, an action is moral if it allows people to choose freely. By deceiving Sarah, the dealer obviously failed to respect Sarah’s freedom to choose and buy a good car. In addition to not being ethical, the dealer did not conform to the Uniform Commercial Code by not acting in good faith when selling the car.
Citations
Uniform Commercial Code § 2-513(b) Uniform Commercial Code § 2-512(1)(a) Uniform Commercial Code § 2-512(2) Uniform Commercial Code § 2-608(1) Uniform Commercial Code § 2-608(2) Waddell v. L.V.R.V. Inc., 58 UCC Rep.2d 654 (Sup. Ct. Nev. 2006) Buchholz, Rogene A., William D. Evans, and Robert A. Wagley. Management Responses to Public Issues, Concepts and Cases in Strategy Formulation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. 1994. Print. Uniform Commercial Code § 2-103(1)(j)