1. Shouldn’t the buyer’s attempts to have the coach fixed by the manufacturer be considered an attempt to cure under the UCC? Why or why not?

2. How much time is “reasonable” to allow the seller to fix the electrical problems? Isn’t the buyer suffering additional damages from not having the coach in service?

3. Is the court’s decision consistent with the underlying premise of the UCC? Does it help promote fairness among merchants? Why or why not? 

Car Transportation (buyer) purchased a Blue Bird luxury motor coach from Blue Bird’s authorized dealer, Bleakly (seller), for $650,000. Although neither the buyer nor the seller performed any predelivery inspection, the seller provided assurances to the buyer that the coach was new and in working condition. On the day of the purchase, however, the buyer’s principal drove the coach from the seller’s lot and began to notice certain defects with the coach’s electrical system. The next day, the buyer returned the coach to the seller for repairs, and the seller’s service technician srepaired several electrical problems to the buyer’s satisfaction. The buyer retook possession of the coach and placed it into service for the buyer’s business on January 5. 

Over the next two months, the coach had additional electrical system defects and several other mechanical problems. Instead of returning the coach to the seller once again, the buyer opted to return the coach to the manufacturer for repairs. On February 18, the manufacturer returned the coach to the buyer, but the electrical problems were still not fully resolved. On March 22, the buyer notified the seller that it was revoking the acceptance of the coach due to the mechanical problems. Eventually, the buyer sued the seller, asserting, among other claims, revocation of the buyer’s acceptance. The seller argued that it had not been given the opportunity to cure as required by Georgia’s commercial law statutes. The trial court found in favor of the seller, and the buyer appealed. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the seller. The court held that the UCC’s opportunity to cure required the buyer to provide the seller with a reasonable time in which to attempt to make repairs. What constitutes the reasonable time in which to cure depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of the particular case. The court held that the seller was entitled to notice of the additional problems occurring after delivery and an opportunity to repair them at some time during the three months prior to the buyer’s revocation.

“[T]he Buyer gave the Seller one opportunity to cure after the defect in the electrical system first became apparent. After these initial repairs, the Buyer did not inform the Seller when the Coach continued to have additional problems; rather, it returned the Coach to the manufacturer for repairs. Nearly three months after acceptance, after the manufacturer also had made one failed attempt to correct the defect, the Buyer informed the Seller that it was revoking its acceptance of the Coach. Based upon this undisputed evidence, we agree with the district court that, as a matter of law, the Buyer provided the Seller with an insufficient opportunity to cure. Providing only one opportunity to repair—before the extent of the defect was truly apparent—is not reasonable, especially where the product in question is as complicated as a motor coach.”