Lyn-Flex argued that the Code’s perfect tender rule permitted its rejection of the imperfect molds, regardless of Moulton’s substantial performance. Decision?
Moulton Cavity & Mold, Inc., agreed to manufacture twenty-six innersole molds to be purchased by Lyn-Flex. Moulton delivered the twenty-six molds to Lyn-Flex after Lyn-Flex allegedly approved the sample molds. However, Lyn-Flex rejected the molds, claiming that the molds did not satisfy the specifications exactly, and denied that it had ever approved the sample molds. Moulton then sued, contending that Lyn-Flex wrongfully rejected the molds. Lyn-Flex argued that the Code’s perfect tender rule permitted its rejection of the imperfect molds, regardless of Moulton’s substantial performance. Decision?
According to the perfect tender rule, if the buyer is not satisfied by the goods or the delivery of the goods, then the buyer can reject the whole order.
In this case, Individual L is not satisfied with the product because it does not match with the mentioned specifications. Therefore, the rule of perfect tender can be applied, and the order can be rejected.
Judgment will be in favor of Individual L as per the perfect tender rule. One can reject the whole order without bearing any liability if the goods and delivery of goods fail as per the set targets.