It is argued above that returning a damaged car violates the sales agreement because the car is not in the same condition as when the agreement was made. Suppose Joe refutes this by pointing out that even if there had been no accident, he would not have returned the car in precisely the same condition.

The few miles to the restaurant would put some wear and tear on the automobile, but no one would say that the agreement was breached. Thus the fact that the car is returned in an altered condition is insufficient to show that the agreement is breached.What is the flaw in this refutation?