A DOES THIS RESPONSE Analyze and explain whether Clean should be required to replace the Window Sheen products and apply theUniform Commercial Coderules in your analysis Analyze and explain whether Clean should be required to replace the Window Sheen products and why or why not You must consider and apply theUniform Commercial Coderules in your analysis Under the UCC concept of risk of loss, any item destroyed due to no fault of the buyer or the seller may be placed to either depending on the circumstances set forth in the UCC or explicit on contract if included within the contract (Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach, n d ) In this scenario, if the materials are destroyed in route by the carrier, then the risk of loss would be placed on the seller UCC Section 2 608 indicates that the buyer must prove that the non conformity impaired the goods' value prove that the acceptance of the contract was done without the discovery of non conformity notify the seller of the defects and be undertaken at a reasonable time after the identification of the defects (Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part, n d ) However, the concept would less apply if the garage where the goods are stored were destroyed Since the items were not rejected prior to storage, the buyer would have a hard time proving the goods were defective Under the UCC, the buyer has certain responsibilities in this case, the responsibility of inspection (Buyers right to the inspection of goods, n d ) Johnson was granted the right of inspection but chose not to utilize this right until 3 weeks later The time period seems to push the definition of reasonable time especially since the shipment was accepted and maintained on the buyer's property where access was not an issue To reject the shipment after acceptance, the defect would have not been easily discoverable (Buyers right to the inspection of goods, n d ) If the shipment was found frozen 3 weeks later than arrival, the items would most likely have been identified quickly if opened immediately Based on the circumstances and rules set by the UCC, Johnson has very little ground to reject the goods to Clean Johnson will have to accept the loss or provide justification for rejection as to why the items could not possibly be inspected earlier

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Jul 07, 2024

A . DOES THIS RESPONSE Analyze and explain whether Clean should be required to replace the Window Sheen products and apply theUniform Commercial Coderules in

A. DOES THIS RESPONSE Analyze and explain whether Clean should be required to replace the Window Sheen products and apply theUniform Commercial Coderules in your analysis.

Analyze and explain whether Clean should be required to replace the Window Sheen products and why or why not.You must consider and apply theUniform Commercial Coderules in your analysis.

Under the UCC concept of risk of loss, any item destroyed due to no fault of the buyer or the seller may be placed to either depending on the circumstances set forth in the UCC or explicit on contract if included within the contract (Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach, n.d.). In this scenario, if the materials are destroyed in route by the carrier, then the risk of loss would be placed on the seller.

UCC Section 2-608 indicates that the buyer must:

prove that the non-conformity impaired the goods' value
prove that the acceptance of the contract was done without the discovery of non-conformity
notify the seller of the defects and be undertaken at a reasonable time after the identification of the defects (Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part, n.d.)

However, the concept would less apply if the garage where the goods are stored were destroyed. Since the items were not rejected prior to storage, the buyer would have a hard time proving the goods were defective.

Under the UCC, the buyer has certain responsibilities; in this case, the responsibility of inspection (Buyers right to the inspection of goods, n.d.). Johnson was granted the right of inspection but chose not to utilize this right until 3 weeks later. The time period seems to push the definition of reasonable time especially since the shipment was accepted and maintained on the buyer's property where access was not an issue. To reject the shipment after acceptance, the defect would have not been easily discoverable (Buyers right to the inspection of goods, n.d.). If the shipment was found frozen 3 weeks later than arrival, the items would most likely have been identified quickly if opened immediately.

Based on the circumstances and rules set by the UCC, Johnson has very little ground to reject the goods to Clean. Johnson will have to accept the loss or provide justification for rejection as to why the items could not possibly be inspected earlier.