BSH Home Appliances Corp. makes appliances under the Bosch, Siemens, Thermador, and Gaggenau brands. To make and market the “Pro 27 Stainless Steel Range,” a restaurant-quality range for home use, BSH gave specifications for its burner to Detroit Radiant Products Co. and requested a price for 30,000 units. Detroit quoted a price of $28.25 per unit and offered to absorb all tooling and research and development costs. In 2001 and 2003, BSH sent Detroit two purchase orders, for 15,000 and 16,000 units, respectively. In 2004, after Detroit had shipped 12,886 units, BSH stopped scheduling deliveries. Detroit filed a suit against BSH, alleging breach of contract. BSH argued, in part, that the second purchase order had replaced the first, rather than adding to it. After a trial, a federal district court issued its “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” The court found that the two purchase orders “required BSH to purchase 31,000 units of the burner at $28.25 per unit.” The court ruled that Detroit was entitled to $418,261 for 18,114 unsold burners. BSH appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Can an appellate court set aside a trial court’s findings of fact? Can an appellate court come to its own conclusions of law? What should the court rule in this case? Explain.