Treibacher, an Austrian vendor of hard-metal powders, agreed to two contracts with the defendant TDY to sell specified quantities of tantalum carbide (TaC), a hard-metal powder, to TDY Industries, Inc., for delivery to "consignment." TDY planned to use the TaC in manufacturing tungsten-graded carbide powders at its plant in Gurney, Alabama. After it had received some of the amount of TaC specified in the November 2000 contract, TDY refused to take delivery of the balance of the TaC specified in both contracts, and, in a letter to Treibacher dated August 23, 2001, denied that it had a binding obligation to take delivery of or pay for any TaC that it did not want to use. Unbeknownst to Treibacher, TDY had purchased the TaC it needed from another vendor at lower prices than those specified in its contracts with Treibacher. Treibacher eventually sold the quantities of TaC that TDY had refused to take delivery of, but at lower prices than those specified in its con- tracts with TDY. Treibacher then fi led suit against TDY, seeking to recover the balance of the amount Treibacher would have received had TDY paid for all of the TaC specified in the November and December 2000 contracts. What is the appropriate remedy here for Treibacher if TDY is in breach? Does this case fall under the CISG or the UCC? Is there any significance to applying the CISG rather than the UCC?