1. Right to Cure.FACTS:Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. decided to install a fall-protection system for elevated walkways, roof areas, and interior catwalks in Grand Central Terminal, in New York City. The system was needed to ensure the safety of Metro-North employees when they worked at great heights on the interior and exterior of the terminal.Sinco, Inc., proposed a system called "Sayflida," which involved a harness worn by the worker, a network of cables, and metal clips or sleeves called "Sayflinks" that connected the harness to the cables. Metro-North agreed to pay $197,325 for the installation of this system by June 26, 1999. Because the system's reliability was crucial, the contract required certain quality control processes. During a training session for Metro-North employees on June 29, theSayflinksleeves fell apart. Within two days,Sincomanufactured and delivered two different types of replacement clips without subjecting them to the contract's quality control process, but Metro-North rejected them.Sincosuggested other possible solutions, which Metro-North did not accept. In September, Metro-North terminated its contract withSincoand awarded the work to Surety, Inc., at a price of about $348,000.Sincofiled a suit in a federal district court, alleging breach of contract. Metro-North counterclaimed for its cost of cover.
2. ISSUE:In whose favor should the court rule, and why?
3. RESOLUTION:[Sinco, Inc. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co.,133 F.Supp.2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)]How did the court answer the questions?What did the court decide?
4. EXPLANATION-Do you agree with the court?Why or why not?Can you change any facts to give a different result?