New furniture was delivered to the buyer, and it was badly damaged. The purchaser notified the furniture store of the damage, and the store sent a representative to the buyer. The representative explained that the furniture could be repaired and restored. After hearing the details, the buyer refused and asked for her money back. The store refused, claiming that she had accepted the goods and was required to permit the seller to cure the defects. Who prevailed? [ Clark v. Zaid, Inc., 263 Md. 127 (1971).]