Public policy under the above laws

Under UCC §2-513 (2), the buyer has right to inspect the goods: The buyer has the right to inspect the goods before accepting and paying for them. If the goods conform to the sales agreement, the buyer is obligated to pay for the inspection costs. If the goods do not conform, the buyer may demand the costs of inspection from the seller. UCC §2-601 specified that limitation to the buyer. After reasonable opportunity to inspect, the buyer may inadvertently accept the goods without discovering the non-conformity.

Hence the buyer cannot reject the goods but may ‘revoke’ the acceptance only if the ‘non-conformity substantially imparts its value to the buyer. With this limitation, the buyer will be loosing the rejection ground and compelled accept the goods though the goods do not match conditions. EXPLAIN THE PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE DECISION IN THE ZABRISKIE CASE AND OTHER CASES LIKE IT. Statute of frauds suggests to prevent injury from fraudulent conduct.

The statute makes certain contracts VOIDABLE by one of the parties, in the event that the other party does not wish to follow through on the agreement. The voidable contract remains valid unless one of the parties chooses to void the contract. The Statute of fraud applicable to the following types of contracts Contracts involving the sale or transfer of land Contracts to answer for the debt or duty of another Contracts that, by its terms, cannot be completed within one year.

Certain contracts for the sale of goods, under UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE The given case (ZABRISKIE CASE) clearly opposed to public policy under the above laws i. e. Uniform Commercial Code and Statute of Frauds. Under the UCC §2-201, sale agreement for the price $ 500 or more is enforceable only when the records signed by the parties are available. There is another law Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a Federal Law which protects the buyer of any product which costs more than $25 with express written warranty.

The law applies to any product, which does not perform, as it should be. However in the case of Yandon V. East Tennessee Motor Co. 1988 Westlaw 20487, the court ignored Zabriskie and held that a buyer had to accept a rebuilt transmission as a cure. In Durfee V. Rod Baxter Imports, the court held that the consumer may elect to revoke option when repairs are not successfully undertaken within a reasonable time.

REFERENCE

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2#s2-101