Lexplug logoLexplug

Sinco, Inc. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

District Court, S.D. New York
133 F. Supp. 2d 308 (2001)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a seller's attempt to cure a non-conforming tender of goods, particularly vital safety equipment, requires more than mere offers of potential solutions; the seller must make a conforming tender by putting replacement goods and objective proof of their reliability at the buyer's disposition.


Facts:

  • Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company contracted with Sinco, Inc. to install a 'Sayfglida' fall-protection system in Grand Central Terminal, which the contract specified must provide '100% Fall Protection' for maintenance workers.
  • The system utilized metal clips called 'Sayflinks' to connect a worker's harness to a network of cables.
  • On June 29, 1999, during a training session for Metro-North employees, a Sayflink sleeve fell apart in a worker's hands.
  • An inspection revealed that three other sample Sayflinks delivered by Sinco had identical defects, prompting an immediate suspension of the training.
  • Sinco admitted its quality control process had failed, attributing the defect to an operator error.
  • Within two days, Sinco delivered eight replacement clips—four of which were standard and four of which had additional welding—along with a videotape of a stress test Sinco had performed on one of the welded clips.
  • Sinco also offered several other potential remedies, including hiring an independent engineering firm for testing, performing on-site 'drop tests,' and allowing Metro-North to inspect its manufacturing plant.
  • Metro-North rejected the replacement parts, the videotape, and all of Sinco's subsequent proposals.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sinco, Inc. filed a complaint for breach of contract against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • Metro-North filed a counterclaim against Sinco for its 'cost of cover' to hire another company.
  • Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment before the court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under New York's Uniform Commercial Code § 2-508, does a seller's series of proposals to fix a defective product, without making a conforming tender of replacement goods accompanied by objective evidence of their reliability, constitute a legally sufficient cure for a material breach?


Opinions:

Majority - Hellerstein, District Judge

No. Under U.C.C. § 2-508, a seller's mere offers of potentially curative performance are insufficient to cure a material breach; the seller must make a 'conforming tender.' The court reasoned that a conforming tender requires the seller to put and hold conforming goods at the buyer's disposition and provide any necessary notification. In cases involving vital safety equipment, where reliability is the essence of the contract, a conforming tender must include not only replacement parts but also objective, convincing evidence of their reliability. Sinco's self-produced videotape of a single stress test was not objective proof, and its subsequent suggestions improperly attempted to shift the burden of effectuating a cure onto Metro-North. Because Sinco never made a conforming tender of a demonstrably reliable system, it failed to cure its breach, and Metro-North was justified in terminating the contract.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the scope of a seller's right to cure under U.C.C. § 2-508, particularly for goods where safety and reliability are paramount. The court establishes that 'conforming tender' is a high standard in such contexts, requiring the seller to proactively provide objective verification of the cure's effectiveness, rather than simply offering replacement parts or suggesting verification methods. This ruling heightens the burden on sellers of critical equipment, who cannot shift the onus of confirming reliability to the buyer after a breach. It signals that courts will require sellers to do more than just offer a fix; they must deliver and objectively prove the fix, thereby restoring the buyer's confidence on an objective basis.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sinco, Inc. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"