Discussion Topic Case Facts: BMW Group, LLC ordered No. 4 fuel oil from Castle Oil Corporation for delivery to BMW's building in Manhattan. BMW paid the retail price for No. 4 fuel oil, but Castle's delivered product did not conform to the order - it appeared to have been mixed with waste oil. Meanwhile, Mid Island LP. and Carnegie Park Associates, L.P., ordered No.4 and No. 6 fuel oil for their buildings in New York City from Hess Corporation but also received a blend containing waste oil. BMW and the other property owners led a suit in a New York state court against Castle and Hess, alleging that the defendants had delivered goods of lesser value that did not meet the standards governing the parties' contracts. The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not allege an injury caused by the use of the blended oil. The plaintiffs appealed. Issue: Was the fuel oil that Castle delivered to the plaintiffs of the identical grade specied in the parties' sales contracts? Decision: No. A state intermediate appellate court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. "If the goods that are delivered do not conform to the goods contemplated by the sale contract, the purchaser has a cause of action under the Uniform Commercial Code." The appellate court concluded that in their complaint, the "plaintiffs successfully alleged that the delivered goods were nonconforming." Questions to answer: 1. Do you agree or disagree with the decision that was made by the courts? Why or why not? 2. What do you think the defendants could have done differently in this case to avoid a lawsuit? 3. The defendants did not inform the plaintiffs that the delivered oil was a blend. Is there an ethical implication in this situation to let them know that the oil was blended? Why or why not? Dru-\"AHA +n Flt't'm'l'l'l Dr'l-z