Reference no: EM132196470

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.