Lyn-Flex argued that the Code’s perfect tender rule permitted its rejection of the imperfect molds, regardless of Moulton’s substantial performance. Decision?

Jump to Solution
Category:

Lyn-Flex argued that the Code’s perfect tender rule permitted its rejection of the imperfect molds, regardless of Moulton’s substantial performance. Decision?

0
0

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?

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

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.

Verified Answer

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.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.