On November $29,2010,$ Charles Products entered into an agreement to provide Hillerich & Bradsby with a variety of products to be sold in Hillerich & Bradsby's Louisville Slugger Museum Store. The products included ball and cup sets, baseball piggy banks, batter ducks, stress balls, "Bunny H$2$O cups," "Kids Pop$-$Up Water Bottles," "Bunny Sippy Cups," and lunch boxes.Under the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of $2008($CPSIA$),$ manufacturers, when shipping goods designed to be sold to children, must provide and accompany the shipment with a certificate of compliance that identifies "the manufacturer or private labeler issuing the certificate and any other third$-$party conformity assessment body on whose testing the certificate depends." CPSIA also requires manufacturers to place permanent, distinguishing marks on children's products and packaging. The markings are intended to enable the manufacturer as well as the ultimate purchaser to ascertain the location and date of production of the product and cohort information $($including the batch, run number, or other identifying characteristic$).$ CPSIA also mandates that children's products generally must not contain more than one hundred $(100)$ parts per million of total lead content.Charles Products began tendering the items about February $15.2011.$ After two months of selling the items, the director of retail for the museum sent an email to the regional sales representative for Charles Products, asking whether they were sure the paint on the "ball and cup" set was not lead based and whether it complied with the CPSIA regulations. In November, some nine months after Charles Products began to tender products to Hillerich & Bradsby, the Director of Retail again contacted the Charles representative indicating that she needed the certificates for the products they had that were intended for youth under $12.$Subsequently, she also asked for test documentation that they were in compliance with the CPSIA guidelines. Further email exchanges between the parties in February $2012$ focused on the lack of documentation for the products.In April $2012,$ Charles Products was informed that one of its productsa rubber die cut mug$-$was tested for lead content and found to exceed the CPSIA lead limit$.$ The following month, two other products$-$the baseball piggy bank and the lunchbox$-$were similarly found to be nonconform$-$ing due to excess lead. Hillerich & Bradsby then had to pull those items from the sales floor and sought to return them for a full refund of the purchase price. In August, after consulting with the Consumer Products Safety Commission concerning items with noncompliant tracking labels, Hillerich & Bradsby informed Charles Products it would be returning all noncompliant items.Hillerich & Bradsby had sold a substantial number of some items. For example, it sent back only $107$ of $1,514$ "tim$-$ers" it had received, $34$ of $748$ "batter ducks," $1,394$ outof $4,452$ "stress balls," and $263$ of $1,001$ "Big Rig Trailers." that they lac On the other hand, it had only sold a small fraction of the pliance that amount of some other items received from Charles Prod$-$ law. The lac ucts; for example: it returned $1,338$ of $1,443$ "Bunny H$2$O ascertainable cups," $1,236$ out of $1,438$ "Kids Pop Up Water bottles," and did not conta $2,321$ of $2,472$ "Bunny Sippy Cups." However, over a period about of a year and a half, Hillerich & Bradsby had sold hundreds of products it subsequently alleged were nonconforming.