Moulton Cavity & Mold Inc. v. Lyn-Flex Ind\

FACTS Moulton Cavity & Mold Inc. agreed to manufacture twen-ty-six innersole molds to be purchased by Lyn-Flex. Moulton delivered the twenty-six molds to Lyn-Flex after Lyn-Flex allegedly approved the sample molds. However, Lyn-Flex rejected the molds, claiming that they did not satisfy the specifications exactly, and denied that it had ever approved the sample molds. Moulton then sued, contending that Lyn-Flex wrongfully rejected the molds. Lyn-Flex, arguing that the Code's perfect tender rule permitted its rejection of the imper-fect molds, regardless of Moulton's substantial performance, appealed from a judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Moulton.

DECISION Judgment for Moulton reversed and a new trial ordered.

OPINION Under the Code's perfect tender provision, "if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may reject the whole." Therefore, Moulton's substantial performance does not obligate Lyn-Flex to accept the molds. If they failed to meet the contract's specifications in any respect, Lyn-Flex was entitled to reject them without liability.

INTERPRETATION If the seller does not perform his contrac-tual obligations exactly, the buyer may rightfully reject the seller's performance.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION Do you agree with the Code's perfect tender rule? Explain.Moulton Cavity & Mold Inc. v. Lyn-Flex Ind.Supreme Court of Maine, 1979 396 A.2d 102455180_ch20_ptg01_351-369.indd 354 08/11/17 7:01 PMCopyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole

1. what are the Relevant Facts of the case resume ?

1. What is the legal issue? (this should be in the form of a question)

1. Why is this case included in this chapter, what legal point from the chapter does this case represent?

4. What is the key Takeaway from this case? (What should your classmates know about the case)