Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if a buyer receives goods that are “Nonconfor

Question

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if a buyer receives goods that are “Nonconforming” the buyer has a “reasonable time” to reject those goods, otherwise the buyer is treated as having accepted the goods even though they are nonconforming. The two general ways that goods are non-conforming are if the seller delivers (1) defective goods or (2) incorrect goods (goods different from those ordered). Thus, if the buyer fails to reject the goods (i.e., not accept them) within a reasonable time, the buyer has lost its right to return the goods and must pay for those goods despite the fact they are non-conforming.

Here are some cases where a court determined whether or not a buyer had rejected nonconforming goods within a reasonable time:

1. Grocery store had not rejected within a reasonable time when it rejected a truckload of bananas 3 days after they had arrived. The buyer had noticed, upon arrival, that the bananas were overly brown.

2. Ski shop had rejected within a reasonable time when it rejected a shipment of 200 snowboards 15 days after arrival after noticing (5 days after arrival) that the top surface of all of the snowboards contained discoloration).

3. Grocery store had rejected within a reasonable time when it rejected a shipment of 144 boxes of energy bars 7 days after arrival because it noticed the day that they arrived that all of them were the incorrect flavors.

Question 1.

In 4 to 5 sentences explain in general how a court would use the precedent cases above in future disputes over the interpretation of a “reasonable time” to reject goods.

Explanation / Answer

If we look at the definition of nonconforming goods and reasonable time that the court used when deciding the three cases presented we can see some pointers that show us what can be considered a reasonable time to reject goods in the future.

In the first case, the items spoiled quickly, so even if the grocery store reported them as defective three days after arrival, they noticed in the first day, giving the item plenty of time to spoil. This is why the court did not rule in favor of the supermarket, so the time it takes for items to deteriorate should be taken into account when considering a reasonable time.

For the second case, it was granted because the snowboards disputed showed the same flaw and were not quickly deteriorating items, so the kind of flaw protested should be taken into account.

Finally, in the third case, all the energy drinks were not as ordered and where rejected way before their expiration date, so the wrong kind of product is an important factor as well.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse U
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.