The seller’s opportunity to cure nonconforming goods is an important provision of the UCC. I think real world examples are particularly helpful in understanding the nuances of these types of discussions. Take a look at Case 20.1 below. What do you think about this case? Using this case as an example, why do you think the law recognizes the right to cure a defective tender of goods? Are there reasons for this provision, or do you think a seller who tenders nonconforming goods should immediately be considered in breach of contract?
Nonconforming Goods The Jacob Hartz Seed Company, Inc. (Hartz), bought soybeans for use as seed from E. R. Coleman. Coleman certified that the seed had an 80 percent germination rate. Hartz paid for the beans and picked them up from a warehouse in Card, Arkansas. After the seed was transported to Georgia, a sample was submitted for testing to the Georgia Department of Agriculture. When the department reported a germination level of only 67 percent, Coleman requested that the seed be retested. The second set of tests reported a germination rate of 65 percent. Hartz canceled the contract after the second test, and Coleman reclaimed the seed. Hartz sought a refund of the money it had paid for the seed, claiming that the soybeans were noncon-forming goods. Who wins?Jacob Hartz Seed Co. v. Coleman, 271 Ark. 756, 612 S.W.2d 91,Web 1981 Ark. Lexis 1153 (Supreme Court of Arkansas)
