At a sports card show in 1995, James Fitl of Omaha, Nebraska, met Mark Strek, doing businessas Star Cards of San Francisco. On Streks representation about the condition of a certain baseballcard, Fitl bought it from Strek for $17,750. In May 1997, Fitl sent the card to Professional SportsAuthenticators, a sports-cards grading service, which told Fitl that the card was ungradable. Fitlcomplained to Strek, who replied that Fitl should have acted within a typical grace period for theunconditional return of a card, ... 7 days to 1 month of its receipt. ASA Accugrade, Inc., anothergrading service, agreed that the card was ungradable. Fitl filed a suit in a Nebraska state courtagainst Strek, seeking damages. The court awarded Fitl $17,750, plus his court costs. Strek appealed.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. In the circumstances of this case, notice of a defect in thegoods two years after their purchase was reasonable. Fitl had reasonably relied on Streks represen-tation that the goods were authentic, which they were not, and when their defects were discovered,Fitl had given a timely notice. [T]he policies behind the notice requirement, to allow the seller tocorrect a defect, to prepare for negotiation and litigation, and to protect against stale claims at a timebeyond which an investigation can be completed, were not unfairly prejudiced by the lack of an ear-lier notice to Strek. Any problem Strek may have had with the party from whom he obtained thebaseball card was a separate matter from his transaction with Fitl, and an investigation into thesource of the altered card would not have minimized Fitls damages?

Who has the burden to show a breach, or its absence, in cases involving attempts to recover damagesfor accepted goods?