Question: The Corey Corporation entered into a contract to sell machine parts to G&H Wholesalers. Corey shipped machine parts different from those specified in the contract, and G&H rejected them. Corey made no mention of the nonconformity, nor did Corey make any attempt to re-send conforming goods. One day after G&H informed Corey that the parts were rejected, they were destroyed by fire in G&H's warehouse. Corey attempted to recover that cost of the machine parts in spite of the fire loss, claiming that the risk of loss rested with G&H. Is the Corey Corporation correct?