Don Gray, who ran an aircraft paint shop, was hired to repaint an airplane owned by Bob Moreland. When Moreland left the plane for the paint job, a bailment was created. The price agreed on was $9,470. When Moreland picked up the airplane, he was disappointed in the quality of the work and pointed out numerous defects. Gray had signed the airplane logbooks, indicating that the work was complete. Moreland flew the plane to another paint shop, which redid the paint job and estimated the cost of repairing the damage caused by Gray to be about $7,000. Moreland refused to pay Gray, who then sued for payment for the work he had performed on the plane. Moreland made a counterclaim. The jury awarded Moreland damages of $9,385, plus attorneys’ fees of $12,420. Gray appealed, contending that when Moreland took possession of the airplane after the job was completed, he was accepting the work that had been completed. Moreland had no right to take it to another shop without giving Gray a chance to repair any defects. Is that argument correct? Why or why not? [Gray v. Moreland, 2010 Ark.App. 207 (2010)]