$($Please use IRAC method$)$ McNeely entered into a contract with Wagner to pay $$250,000$ as a lump sum for all timber present in a given area that Wagner would remove for McNeely. The contract estimated that the volume in the area would be $780,000$ board feet. Wagner also had provisions in the contract that made no warranties as to the amount of lumber and that he would keep whatever timber was not harvested if McNeely ended the contract before the harvesting was complete. The $$250,000$ was to be paid in three advances. McNeely paid two of the three advances but withheld the third payment and ended the contract because he said there was not enough timber. Wagner filed suit for the remaining one$-$third of the payment. McNeely said Wagner could not have the remaining one$-$third of the payment as well as the transfer; he had to choose between the two remedies. Is he correct? $[$Wagner v$.$ McNeely, $38$ U$.$C$.$C$.2$d $1176($Or$.)]$