In Griffith v. Clear Lakes Trout, where a dispute arose over trout, the court held that the buyer, Clear Lakes, had to accept small fish despite their not being "market size," because otherwise Griffith would go bankrupt.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In Griffith v. Clear Lakes Trout, the court held that the buyer, Clear Lakes, did not have to accept the small fish because they were not of the "market size" specified in the contract, and the potential bankruptcy of Griffith was not a valid reason to enforce acceptance of non-conforming goods.

In Griffith V