Brighter Day was a retail distributor of choir robes that Murphy manufactured.

Brighter Day supplied representatives from the Zion Temple with a sample robe and a “sample board” containing descriptions of various types of fabric and samples of each fabric in various colors. A disclaimer at the end of each of the descriptions stated, “All shades subject to dye lot variations.” Zion ordered choir robes and overlays out of a fabric and colors selected from the sample board.

After delivery, officials from Zion Temple found several problems with the robes including that the sleeves were defective and that they did not like the color or the material, which they claimed was different from the sample in the sample board. Within a week, Zion wrote a letter detailing all the problems with the robes. Murphy offered to fix the sleeves, but Zion declined this offer because of the other problems with the robes. Eventually, Murphy offered to make an additional set of robes and overlays in the style of Zion’s, but Zion declined the offer. It wished to return the robes and have its purchase money refunded. When Murphy refused, Zion sued for a refund of the deposit money.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Did Zion reject the goods or did they revoke their acceptance?

Does it make a difference? Explain why or why not.

2. Did Zion have an obligation to allow Murphy to cure? Explain.

3. Who prevails and why?