20.11 Business Ethics Ruby and Carmen Ybarra purchased a new double-wide mobile
ID: 2741471 • Letter: 2
Question
20.11 Business Ethics Ruby and Carmen Ybarra purchased a new double-wide mobile home from Modern Trailer Sales, Inc. (Modern). Modern delivered the mobile home to the Ybarras. A few days after delivery, portions of the floor began to rise and bubble, creating an unsightly and troublesome situation for the Ybarras. The Ybarras complained to Modern about the floor as soon as they discovered the defects. Modern sent repairmen to cure the defective floor on at least three occasions, but each time they were unsuccessful. The Ybarras continued to complain about the defects. The Ybarras continued to rely on Modern’s assurances that it was able and willing to repair the floor. After four years of complaints, the Ybarras sued to revoke their acceptance of the sales contract. Did the Ybarras properly revoke their acceptance of the sales contract? Did Modern act ethically in this case? Did the Ybarras? Ybarras v. Modern Trailer Sales, Inc., 94 N.W. 249, 609 P.2d 331, Web 1980 N.M. Lexis 2676 (Supreme Court of New Mexico)
Look at Case 20.1. What do you think about this case? Using this case as an example, why do you think the law recognizes the right to cure a defective tender of goods? Are there reasons for this provision, or do you think a seller who tenders nonconforming goods should immediately be considered in breach of contract?
Explanation / Answer
Under the "Ybarras v. Modern Trailer Sales, Inc.", 1980 case, Ybarras has raised alarm to the Modern as soon as they discovered the defect, so Ybarras has fulfilled its part of action. Now, it is the obligation of the Modern to got the floor repaired to the satisfaction of the buyer. When seller would not able to repair at the first time, Ybarras has to revoke their acceptance of the sales contract. But they have waited for a period of 4 years to revoke the sales contract.
So, in the case, both buyer and the seller acted ethically, as they have acted when the situation has wanted them to act. But because the buyer do not receive good, undefective & comforming to tenders goods, so the court has rulled it in favour of the buyer.
Based on the case, the law could recognizes the right to cure a defective tender of goods, but it always has a end-less debet on the subject that when a good can be recognised as defective and at what level of time the acceptance of the sales contract could be revoked. Laws and provisions should be made against the seller who tenders nonconforming goods and period limit must be set by which the buyer could revoke / the acceptance of the sales contract against the defective goods supplied to them. One the point of the seller, it will be also goods to have revokable time limit, so that it able to make appropriate provisions in its business and repair schedule. The seller will be more serious on providing the conforming goods as per the contract.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.