Problem
• What are Abby's rights against We Are Weddings, if any? If you conclude that Abby has such rights, to what damages do you believe she would be entitled?
Since they are telling Abby she did in fact accept the delivery of chairs and tables before checking if they fit what she wanted, we should look at what acceptance looks like in this case. In regards to acceptance, "a unilateral offer can be accepted by beginning performance" (Miller, pg. 348), and since the offer was made and accepted through Abby ordering from We Are Weddings, this would be considered acceptance. Under the UCC Statute of Frauds, sales contracts for goods priced at $500 or more must be in writing or record to be enforceable. The UCC preserves the perfect tender doctrine, which says that if goods or tender of delivery fails in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer or lessee may accept the goods, reject the entire shipment, or accept part and reject part (Miller, pg. 352). Abby should have used her absolute right to inspect the goods before making payment. However, if the goods are not as ordered, the buyer has no duty to pay, and since Abby had not paid for the items yet, she can use this as an argument to not pay We Are Weddings. Abby also has the right to recover damages for accepted goods. She notified We Are Weddings of the breach within a reasonable time after the defect was discovered (the next day). Therefore, she should be able to keep the goods if she wants and recover damages which include reimbursement for all the charges she incurred. In the end, her right to recover damages for accepted goods trumps everything.
Agree or disagree? And why?