Is Trudy likely correct in that she owes Theresa no obligation?
A) Yes, Trudy is correct but only because a consumer transaction with a nonmerchant is involved.
B) Yes, but only because the fixtures were incorporated into real property.
C) Yes, because that is the only remedy she must provide under any circumstances.
D) Yes, but only because the fixtures had not yet been paid for by the buyer.
E) No, because Theresa had the right to revoke acceptance and cover.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

According to the case in the text, U.S.A. Coil & Air Inc., v. Hodess Building Co., "When a buyer justifiably revokes acceptance of goods, the measure of direct damages is the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price, less any expenses saved as a result of the seller's breach. UCC 2-711(1)(b)." UCC Sections 2-608 and 2A-517 sometimes allow the buyer or lessee to revoke acceptance of nonconforming goods. For instance, Hodess rejected acceptance of nonconforming goods. Hodess was allowed to reject acceptance because it had made a reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be cured but then the nonconformity was not cured within a reasonable amount of time.

Is Trudy Likely Correct in That She Owes Theresa No