On January 3, 1991, Central District Alarm (CDA) and Hal-Tuc entered into a

written sales agreement providing that CDA would sell and install new security

equipment described on an equipment list attached to the contract. This list

included a Javelin VCR. When the system was installed, CDA installed a used

JVC VCR instead of a new Javelin VCR. Hal-Tuc called CDA the day after the

installation and complained that the equipment was not the Javelin brand, and

that the VCR was a used JVC VCR. CDA told Hal-Tuc that the equipment

was not used and that a JVC VCR was better than a Javelin. Hal-Tuc

telephoned CDA personnel over a two-week period during which they denied

that the equipment was used.

After two weeks of calls, CDA’s installation manager went to the store to see

the equipment and admitted that it was used. No one from CDA advised Hal-

Tuc in advance that it was installing used equipment temporarily until the right

equipment arrived. CDA offered to replace it with a new Javelin VCR as soon

as one arrived, which would take one or two months. Hal-Tuc asked CDA to

592 Part 3 Sales and Leases of Goods

return its deposit and take the equipment back, but CDA refused. Hal-Tuc put

all the equipment in boxes and stored it. CDA filed a petition against Hal-Tuc

for damages for breach of contract. Hal-Tuc filed a counterclaim, alleging

fraud. CDA asserted it had the right to cure by tendering conforming goods

after Hal-Tuc rejected the nonconforming goods. Was CDA correct? [Central

District Alarm, Inc. v Hal-Tuc, Inc., 866 SW2d 210 (Mo App)]

AppendixLO1