Please respond to the questions at the end of the case, remember no AI usage, students.

UCC Warranty Case Exercise

The Leaky Valves Case

Aqualon Co., a chemical manufacturer, had a contract with MAC Equipment Inc.for MAC to produce airlocks (rotary valves) for use in a pneumatic conveyingsystem. During contract negotiations, the parties discussed how much thevalves would leak. Aqualon placed an order for the valves based on the amountof leakage MAC estimated. After repeatedly stressing its right to reject thesenonconforming valves, Aqualon issued additional orders for the valves, accepteddelivery, and paid for the valves in full. Three years later, Aqualon notified MACit intended to pursue a claim of breach of contract and breach of warranty.

The district court dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract and breach ofwarranty claims on the grounds that notice was not given within a reasonabletime after acceptance, as UCC 2-607(3) requires. The plaintiff appealed thecase to the US District Court.

During the appeal, MAC admitted it knew when it delivered the valves that theyleaked more than it had estimated, but it was not aware that Aqualon wouldconsider this a breach of anything.

QUESTIONS:

1. Who was the plaintiff in the original case?

2.Who is the appellee in the appeal?

3. Does MAC's action warrant a breach of contract?

3. How do you think the federal court decided the case?

Aqualon Co. v. MAC Equipment Inc. (Murnaghan) No. 97-1693, July 8, 1998; USDC at Richmond, Va.;Brewster S. Rawls for appellant; Earle Duncan Getchell Jr. for appellee * VLW 098-2-151, 15 pp.