UCC is Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC deals with transactions involving with movable property only. It is a source of law for all contracts, which are dealing with the sale of products. The UCC enacted in 50 states and some of the territories of the United States. The UCC governed by TARR. TARR referrers to Tender, Acceptance, Rejection and Revocation.
During the tender stage, when the buyer intends to purchase the goods, the buyer is entitled to reject to such goods, which are failed in respect of the contract. In respect of the acceptance stage, the buyer accepts the goods in such belief, that the manufacturer will repair the problems, which are under warranty. As far as rejection stage, the buyer of the goods, may find the problem with the goods, the buyer may reject the good with the reasonable time. Still the buyer may revoke the acceptance of goods during the revocation stage.
The UCC provisions will be applicable to the sale of goods to a US customer. However it is subject to United Nations Convention for the International Sale of good or parties chosen another law wherever applicable.
IDENTIFY AND EXPLAIN THE APPLICABLE UCC SECTIONS RELATIVE TO ZABRISKIE CHEVROLET, INC V SMITH, 240 A 2D 195(1968)
Zabriskie Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smith, 240 A.2d 195 (1968)
Mr.Zabriskie case is example of rejection. He has purchased a new car 1966 Chevrolet Biscayne and has given check for payment. Later on he went for drive with the said car for which it was troubled on the same day, which was happened within 2.5 miles away. Mr.Zabriskie, buyer of the car reacted immediately and given instructions for stop payment of the said check. But the dealer contended that the buyer could not reject the car as the buyer taken a trial within the block for which he was satisfied. The dealer also contended that it is reasonable opportunity to inspect the product.
The New Jersey Court clearly described that the buyer first reasonable opportunity to enjoy his new vehicle to see it conforms what he bargained for. The inspection of new good is not an issue in the present case because the fault was noticed 7/10 mile is clearly ambit of reasonable opportunity to inspect. Hence the contention of dealer is not valid. Here the buyer has reasonable opportunity to reject under UCC.
The Uniform Commercial Code Comment to 12A: 2-508 reads, avoid injustice to the seller by reason of a surprise rejection by the buyer. However the seller is not protected unless he had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the tender would be acceptable. It is clear that there is no “forced breach” on the part of the buyer. The transaction of sale is cancelled and hence cure is not suitable under UCC.
Article 2 provides buyer has two remedies, when the seller makes a non-conforming tender. The remedies are rejection and cancellation. In rejection option, the buyer rejects the tender since the seller does not perform the cure. In the case of cancellation, buyer cancels the contract for breach of the contract. The Article 2 provides no process for cancellation and even no notice is required for such cancellation. Under UCC §2-601, the buyer may reject the whole, or accept the whole, or accept any commercial unit and reject the rest. Though the buyer’s remedy for rejection, the seller has right to ‘cure’ under UCC §2-508. But here reasonable time is important.
Under UCC §2-315, implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose applies when the seller knew or had reason to know that the buyer was buying the goods for a particular purpose and the buyer was relying on the Seller’s expertise to select goods suitable for that purpose. Based on implied warranty, in the given case, buyer purchased the car.
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 landContracts to answer for the debt or duty of anotherContracts that, by its terms, cannot be completed within one year.Certain contracts for the sale of goods, under UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODEThe 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.