Wilson v. Scampoli
Unites States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1967
228 A.2d 848

Procedural history: * In this case, Wilson (plaintiff) has brought a suit against Scampoli (defendant), because the defendant refused to refund the purchased price of the TV set. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Scampoli appealed.
Facts of the case: * Wilson, the plaintiff in this case, bought a TV set from the defendant, Scampoli. After Wilson received the set, she found out that the set she bought was defective. It did not function properly. The service representative asked if he could return the TV set back to shop, so they could see what the problem is and repair it. Wilson refused to do this. She wanted a brand new TV set, not the repaired one. Ultimately, she brought a suit against Scampoli seeking a refund of the purchased price.
Issue:
* Whether the dealer may conform his tender by adjustment or minor repair or whether he must conform by substituting brand new merchandise?
The rule of law:
The court used [UCC §] 2-508 which provides:
1) Where any tender or delivery by the seller is rejected because non-conforming and the time for performance has not yet expired, the seller may seasonably notify the buyer of his intention to cure and may then within the contract time make a conforming delivery.
2) Where the buyer rejects a non-conforming tender which the seller had reasonable grounds to believe would be acceptable with or without money allowance the seller may if he seasonably notifies the buyer have a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender.

Type of case: * Cure by the seller. There are two situations in which a seller may cure or correct a nonconforming tender of goods. The first opportunity for cure occurs when the time for performance under the contract has not expired and the second opportunity