Wilson v. Scampoli
228 A.2d 848 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under UCC § 2-508, a seller who delivers non-conforming goods has a reasonable time to cure the defect, which can include making minor repairs or adjustments. A buyer cannot rescind the sales contract by refusing to give the seller a reasonable opportunity to inspect and repair the goods.
Facts:
- On November 4, 1965, Appellee purchased a new color television set from Appellant, paying the total purchase price in cash.
- The sales ticket guaranteed ninety days’ free service and replacement of defective parts for one year.
- Two days after purchase, the set was delivered and, when turned on, it did not function properly, displaying a picture with a reddish tinge.
- On November 8, 1965, a service representative from Appellant arrived and was unable to correct the color at Appellee's home.
- The service representative stated that he needed to take the television's chassis to the shop to determine the cause of the problem.
- Appellee's daughter, Mrs. Kolley, refused to allow the chassis to be removed, stating she wanted a 'brand new' set, not a 'repaired' one.
- Mrs. Kolley subsequently demanded a full refund of the purchase price, but retained the television set.
- Appellant refused to refund the purchase price but renewed the offer to repair the set, or replace it if it could not be made to function properly.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellee (buyer) filed a lawsuit against Appellant (seller) in the trial court, seeking rescission of the sales contract and a refund of the purchase price.
- Following a trial, the court ruled in favor of Appellee, ordering the contract rescinded and directing Appellant to return the purchase price.
- Appellant (seller) appealed the judgment of the trial court to this intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a buyer have the right to rescind a sales contract for a defective product by refusing to permit the seller to exercise their right to cure the defect through inspection and minor repair under UCC § 2-508?
Opinions:
Majority - Myers, Associate Judge
No. A buyer does not have the right to rescind a sales contract by refusing the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure a non-conforming tender. Under D.C. Code § 28:2-508 (UCC § 2-508), where a buyer rejects a non-conforming tender which the seller had reasonable grounds to believe would be acceptable, the seller has a right to a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender. The court reasoned that a seller has reasonable grounds to believe a new, factory-crated television would be acceptable. The right to 'cure' or 'substitute a conforming tender' is not limited to replacement but can include minor repairs or adjustments, so long as they do not subject the buyer to 'any great inconvenience, risk or loss.' By adamantly refusing to allow Appellant's representative to remove the chassis for inspection and repair, Appellee defeated the seller's right to cure the defect. Therefore, Appellee failed to show a breach of warranty that would justify rescission of the contract.
Analysis:
This case provides a significant interpretation of the seller's 'right to cure' under UCC § 2-508, establishing that the right is not limited to replacement of the non-conforming goods. It clarifies that a cure can be effected through minor repairs or adjustments, balancing a buyer's desire for a perfect product with a seller's right to remedy imperfections in a commercially reasonable manner. The decision imposes an implicit duty of cooperation on the buyer, preventing them from demanding rescission without first affording the seller a reasonable opportunity to fix the problem. This precedent strengthens the seller's position in disputes over defective goods by defining 'cure' more broadly than mere replacement.
