Case Brief Case Citation: Page Number/Topic: Facts: y y y y On July 20, 1978, plaintiffs and salesman employed by defendant

reached an agreement on the sale of a new camper and the trade in value of the plaintiff s van Plaintiffs returned on set date to pick up camper, which had several things wrong with it o 2nd salesman advised them to not accept the camper, as it was not ready Plaintiffs made several telephone calls, but were continually told the camper was not ready o They wanted the camper for their summer vacation August 14, the plaintiffs were told the camper was ready, but when they arrived to pick it up, the paint was still being touched up and the interior was soaking wet o Defendant manager suggested that they take the van in the condition that it was in and they would replace the wet cushions later o Plaintiffs said they would take the camper if they could withhold $2000 o Defendant manager said they could withhold $250 o Plaintiffs refused o Manager said he would call when camper was ready Plaintiff made several phone calls to defendant, but was advised camper was still not ready Defendant informed plaintiff to pick camper up on September 1, they arrived & waited for 1.5 hours, they then left without ever being seen October 1, 1978, plaintiffs returned with an attorney. o Parties discussed whether to return the plaintiff s van. Defendant manager wanted to go ahead with the deal Later in October, defendants sold the traded in van to an innocent 3rd party for $4995 Defendant claimed van had a blue book value of $3200 and they had put $1159.62 worth of repairs into the van. Based on these figures, they would have made a $600-700 profit Autosport did not effect a cure Ramirez v. Autosport, 88 N.J. 277 (1982). Supplemental Case/Rejection of a defective good & remedies/

y y y

y y y

Contract: y y y y y Agreement reached/K signed on July 20, 1978 Purchase price of $14100 of new van $4700 trade in value of plaintiff s van With tax, title, etc, the net amount owed was $9902 Delivery of van to be on or about August 3, 1978

Procedural History: y Plaintiff s filed suit on November 20, 1978, seeking, among other things, rescission of the contract

a seller has the duty to deliver goods that conform precisely to the contract A further problem. the balance shifts again in favor of the buyer. the seller has a further reasonable time to cure if he believed reasonably that the goods would be acceptable y What constitutes further reasonable time depends on the surrounding circumstances. who has the right to cancel or seek damages y . however. 2d §241 Comment B mitigates the harshness of the perfect tender rule and balances the interests of buyer and seller y Done through provisions for revocation of acceptance and cure  Within the time set for performance in the contact. is identifying the remedy available to a buyer who rejects goods with insubstantial defects that the seller fails to cure within a reasonable time y Rule: y R1) NJ UCC 2-106 states that goods conform to a contract when they are in accordance with the obligations under the contract o 2-601 authorizes a buyer to reject goods if they or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contact  Rest. plaintiffs request was for the cancellation of the contract and recovery of the price paid Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract Trial court ruled plaintiffs were within their rights to reject the van and awarded them fair market value of their trade in Appellate court affirmed o Issue: y This case raises several issues under the Uniform Commercial Code concerning whether a buyer may reject a tender of goods with minor defects and whether a seller may cure the defects o Main Issue: Whether the plaintiffs could reject the tender by defendant of a camper van with minor defects and cancel the contract for the purchase of the van.  I1)Whether a consumer may reject defective goods that do not conform to the contract of sale/under UCC as adopted by NJ. Because a buyer may reject goods with insubstantial defects. whether substantial or not. he also may cancel the contract if those defects remain uncured o The code permits a seller to cure imperfect tenders. the buyer may revoke acceptance only if the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to him 2-608 The Code permits a buyer who rightfully rejects goods to cancel a contract of sale. which includes the amount of inconvenience to the buyer o Rest. Should the seller fail to cure the defects. §241 o After acceptance. the seller s right to cure is unconditional  After the time set for performance.y y y In UCC parlance.

N. The court noted that once plaintiff rejected the van. plaintiffs were entitled to rescind or cancel the contract. but to the fair market value. The court then found that the fair market value of their tradein was the proper remedy rather than recovery of their trade-in. Stat.J. which the court set at the contract price of $4700. the trial court determined that the Ramirezes were entitle not to the return of the trade in. Information y y y y Rejection includes both the buyer s refusal to accept or keep delivered goods and his notification to the seller that he will not keep them General contract law permits rescission Where the goods are rejected for not conforming to the contract. Reasoning: Misc. recover so much of the purchase price as has been paid.. and awarding plaintiffs the fair market value of their trade-in. and that they were not entitled to rescind the contract. and that plaintiffs had properly rejected tender of the van within a reasonable time.. retained a perfect tender rule. N. Ann. among other possible remedies. OVERVIEW: Defendant argued that plaintiffs had breached a contract for the sale of a camper van by rejecting tender of the van because it had minor defects. the burden shifted to defendant to prove that the defects had been cured. NJSA 12A:2-711 Holding: y H1) We conclude that the seller is under such a duty to make a perfect tender and that a buyer has the right to reject goods that do not conform to the contract o We conclude that the perfect tender rule is preserved to the extent of permitting a buyer to reject goods for any defects o The trial court properly concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to rescind ie to cancel the contract o Because Autosport had sole the trade-in to an innccent third party. § 12A:1-101 et seq.J. The court found that because defendant had not done so within a reasonable time. Stat. . the burden is on the seller to prove the nonconformity was corrected If a merchant sells defective goods. § 12A:1-101 et seq. the reasonable expectation of the parties is that the buyer will return those goods and that the seller will repair or replace them Lexis Summary: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant challenged a ruling of the New Jersey Superior Court. holding that plaintiffs rightfully rejected tender of a defective van under New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code. Ann. because the trade-in had been sold to an innocent third party.o A buyer who rightfully rejects goods and cancels the contract may. The court found that the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code. Appellate Division.

because defendant failed to cure the defects in a reasonable time. because the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code retained the perfect tender rule.OUTCOME: The court affirmed the ruling. and that they could cancel the contract. holding that plaintiffs could reject tender of the van for minor defects. jungle .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful