The correct answer is: (C) The driver had a right to reject the car, and the dealership had a right to cure the defect.
Section 2-601 of the Uniform Commercial Code creates the perfect tender rule, which provides that any goods at the time of delivery that do not conform to the contract may be wholly rejected, wholly accepted, or partially accepted. As such, the driver had the right to reject the car. However, Section 2-508 also allows a seller the right to cure the defect if the goods tendered are rejected at the time of delivery. Pursuant to this provision, the seller can notify the buyer that it intends to cure the defect and is permitted a reasonable period of time to do so. Here, because there was no stated deadline for the delivery of the car, the dealership is permitted a reasonable time to cure the problem with the car's seats. As such, this answer best describes the parties' rights as of December 14.
(A) Incorrect. The dealership believed that the car it had prepared for the driver was acceptable, and the driver had no right to reject the car.
While it is true that it appears from the facts that the dealership believed that the car it had prepared for the driver was acceptable, it is not true that the driver had no right to reject the car. Section 2-601 of the Uniform Commercial Code creates the perfect tender rule, which provides that any goods at the time of delivery that do not conform to the contract may be wholly rejected, wholly accepted, or partially accepted. As such, the driver had the right to reject the car. However, Section 2-508 also allows a seller the right to cure the defect if the goods tendered are rejected at the time of delivery. Pursuant to this provision, the seller can notify the buyer that it intends to cure the defect and is permitted a reasonable period of time to do so. Here, because there was no stated deadline for the delivery of the car, the dealership is permitted a reasonable time to cure the problem with the car's seats.
(B) Incorrect. The driver had no right to reject the car, because the vinyl seat's nonconformity did not reduce the value of the car.
Section 2-601 of the Uniform Commercial Code creates the perfect tender rule, which provides that any goods at the time of delivery that do not conform to the contract may be wholly rejected, wholly accepted, or partially accepted. As such, the driver had the right to reject the car, regardless of whether the seat's nonconformity reduced the value of the car. However, Section 2-508 also allows a seller the right to cure the defect if the goods tendered are rejected at the time of delivery. Pursuant to this provision, the seller can notify the buyer that it intends to cure the defect and is permitted a reasonable period of time to do so. Here, because there was no stated deadline for the delivery of the car, the dealership is permitted a reasonable time to cure the problem with the car's seats.
(D) Incorrect. The driver had a right to reject the car, because the dealership did not deliver a perfect tender.
The driver had the right to reject the car, because the dealership did not deliver a perfect tender. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-601, any goods at the time of delivery that do not conform to the contract may be wholly rejected, wholly accepted, or partially accepted. As such, it is true that the driver had the right to reject the car. However, Section 2-508 also allows a seller the right to cure the defect if the goods tendered are rejected at the time of delivery. Pursuant to this provision, the seller can notify the buyer that it intends to cure the defect, and the seller is permitted a reasonable period of time to do so. Here, because there was no stated deadline for the delivery of the car, the dealership is permitted a reasonable time to cure the problem with the car's seats. As such, this answer, while correct in so far as it goes, is incomplete.
