Sales and Leases | 141
c. Buyer’s Burden to Establish Breach as to Any Goods Accepted As to any goods accepted, the buyer bears the burden of proof on the seller’s breach of contract. But if the buyer later revokes acceptance, then this special rule ceases to apply. [U.C.C. § 2-607(4) (1951); 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2-607:5, Westlaw (database updated June 2021).] d. Notice of Breach to Preserve Remedy If the buyer has accepted a tender of goods, then within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered a breach, the buyer must notify the seller of the breach. If the buyer fails to provide this notification, then she will be barred from any remedy. [U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a) (1951).] Reasonable Time to Notify Seller of Breach There are no bright-line rules on whether the buyer has notified the seller of a breach within a reasonable time after she discovers or should have discovered the breach. The time will, of course, necessarily vary with the circumstances. Relevant factors include (1) the nature of the goods, (2) the nature of the defect, (3) the parties’ relationship, and (4) the policies behind the notice requirement. The policies behind the notice requirement, in turn, include giving the seller a chance to cure the defect, allowing the seller to obtain and preserve relevant evidence before it goes stale, facilitating negotiation, and lending finality to the transaction. Generally, the buyer can rely on a reputable seller’s representations without making further investigation. [ See 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2- 607:3, Westlaw (database updated June 2021).] Note : Some courts have excused a buyer’s failure to give notice of breach if the failure did not materially prejudice the seller. [ See 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2-607:3, Westlaw (database updated June 2021).] Example : In September of year one, a card collector contracted to buy a baseball card from a dealer for over $17,000. The card appeared to be in near-perfect condition. The collector, reasonably relying on the dealer’s representations as to the card’s authenticity, took delivery of the card and kept it until May of year three. At that time, the collector submitted the card to a professional appraiser to learn its current value. The appraiser determined that the card was fake and, thus, worthless. Shortly after, the collector notified the dealer. On similar facts, a state supreme court held that the collector notified the dealer within a reasonable time after he knew or should have known the card was fake. Initially, the collector reasonably relied on the dealer’s
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker