Landrum sold Gappelberg a big-screen television. The television had many defects, some of which Landrum and his service representatives fixed. Three weeks after the sale, the television stopped working altogether, and Gappelberg let Landrum know. Landrum promised to fix the television, but he did not. Gappelberg then requested return of consideration and asked the service representative to pick up the set but not to repair it because he would not accept it or a replacement. The question in the case was whether Gappelberg was allowed to prevent Landrum from curing the nonconforming television by his refusal to accept a replacement set. What did the court decide? Are you more sympathetic to Landrum or Gappelberg?