XYZ Builders, a Construction Company buys cement from Top Cement Supplies. They buy concrete blocks from UV Concrete Blockers. XYZ ordered 10,000 concrete blocks from UV Concrete Blockers on 10th May 2002. UV Concrete Blockers told XYZ Builders to send down an agent so that he could examine the blocks, which they were building for XYZ Builders. The agent came and had a look on the 20th of May, 2002. At that time only 4,000 blocks had been built and the agent was assured that the other 6,000 blocks would be ready in two days. The 4,000 blockswere of good quality. The agent was also shown the materials that were kept aside for the 6,000 blocks that were still left to be made.After 2 days the agent came back to collect the 10,000 blocks. When he arrived at UV Concrete Blockers premises, he saw that there were only 8,000 blocks set aside for him. He also saw a truck loaded with approximately 2,000 blocks from the 4,000 blocks which he had examined on 20th May 2002 leave for Rival Builders, another construction company. Out of those 8,000 remaining blocks, 2,500 were cracked due to lack of sunshine and adverse weather conditions. The agent said that he was not going to accept those blocks. On this UV Concrete Blockers Manager said that the property in the 8,000 blocks had already passed that morning once the blocks were set aside, and if the agent did not collect the blocks then UV Concrete Blockers would charge XYZ Builders storage expenses at $100 per day. The agent rang XYZ Builders General Manager to discover that he was away overseas on business. The agent then loaded the blocks and took them to XYZ Builders premises where the Engineer rejected the blocks as being of poor quality.Advise XYZ Builders as to whether they have any rights under the Fiji Sale of Goods Act. You may also use case precedent(s) to support your answer. Use the IRAC method to answer the question.

XYZ Builders, a Construction Company buys cement from Top Cement Supplies. They buy concrete blocks from UV Concrete Blockers. XYZ ordered 10,000 concrete blocks from UV Concrete Blockers on 10"h May 2002. UV Concrete Blockers told XYZ Builders to send down an agent so that he could examine the blocks, which they were building for XYZ Builders. The agent came and had a look on the 20" of May, 2002. At that time only 4,000 blocks had been built and the agent was assured that the other 6,000 blocks would be ready in two days. The 4,000 blocks were of good quality. The agent was also shown the materials that were kept aside for the 6,000 blocks that were still left to be made. After 2 days the agent came back to collect the 10,000 blocks. When he arrived at UV Concrete Blockers premises, he saw that there were only 8,000 blocks set aside for him. He also saw a truck loaded with approximately 2,000 blocks from the 4,000 blocks which he had examined on 20th May 2002 leave for Rival Builders, another construction company. Out of those 8,000 remaining blocks, 2,500 were cracked due to lack of sunshine and adverse weather conditions. The agent said that he was not going to accept those blocks. On this UV Concrete Blockers Manager said that the property in the 8,000 blocks had already passed that morning once the blocks were set aside, and if the agent did not collect the blocks then UV Concrete Blockers would charge XYZ Builders storage expenses at $100 per day. The agent rang XYZ Builders General Manager to discover that he was away overseas on business. The agent then loaded the blocks and took them to XYZ Builders premises where the Engineer rejected the blocks as being of poor quality. Advise XYZ Builders as to whether they have any rights under the Fiji Sale of Goods Act. You may also use case precedent(s) to support your answer. Use the IRAC method to answer the