In reaching its decision, the court explained that the buyer may accept the nonconforming goods, with the expectation that the non-conformity will be seasonably cured and if not seasonably cured, the buyer may revoke his acceptance. In Maxwell, the plaintiff bought a Jeep Wrangler that was defective. Crabtree Ford, Inc., 144 Misc.2d 95, 543 N.Y.S.2d 626 (Justice Ct.1989), the court ruled that the plaintiff may revoke the acceptance of the goods delivered even though the non-conformities in the goods were corrected. While the Agreements require that the laws of New Jersey shall govern, the applicable laws of New York are the same as those of New Jersey. (3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.” It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it. (2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. (b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances. (a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured or “(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it National Cash Register Corp., 479 F.Supp. Therefore, the parties' rights and obligations are governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Although the Agreements involved the sale of both goods (the computer system and related equipment) and services (installation and training), the agreements were predominantly for the sale and delivery of goods.
#The inn between syosset menu software
The Purchase Agreement, page 2, section 17(b), and the Hardware and Software Maintenance Agreement, page 2, section 8(g), provide that New Jersey law shall govern. Had this system been an automobile, it surely could be termed a “lemon.” After trial, the Court determines that Remanco had numerous reasonable opportunities to repair the defects in the computer system, and that Remanco failed to timely and adequately do so. Inn Between brought this action to revoke its acceptance of the computer system because the computer system failed to operate properly. Despite the fact that Remanco repeatedly responded to the problems with the computer system and repaired the computer system on numerous occasions, the computer system nevertheless constantly broke down. Malfunctions with the computer system continued so that during the period from Mato July 3, 1995, Inn Between notified Remanco on 48 occasions that it was having problems with the computer system. On March 30, 1995, the computer system malfunctioned and was down for three hours during a training session conducted by Remanco. The computer system was delivered and installed by Remanco on March 29, 1995. The buyer relied upon the seller's expertise to select a proper computer system for the use intended.
In addition, the parties entered into a maintenance contract, whereby Remanco agreed to keep the computer system in good operating order. On February 1, 1995, plaintiff, The Inn Between, Inc., hereinafter “Inn Between,” of Syosset, New York, entered into a contract to purchase a used, refurbished and rebuilt restaurant computer system, including installation and training, from defendant Remanco Metropolitan, Inc., hereinafter “Remanco,” of North Caldwell, N.J. Brancato, Brancato & Brancato, Garden City, for defendant.ĭefendant computer seller had sufficient unsuccessful “bytes at the apple” to repair a restaurant computer system, so as to justify the buyer's revocation of its acceptance of the failed computer system under U.C.C. Solomon, Richman, Greenberg, P.C., Lake Success, for plaintiff.
0 kommentar(er)
