In general, Johnson’s case describes the relationship between a consumer and a seller and the regulation of potential claims on the basis of the sales agreement. Taking into consideration all aspects of this case and the rules of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that regulates all commercial transaction, it is possible to conclude that GC should not be required to replace the cases of Window Sheen cleaner (“Uniform Commercial Code,” n.d.). First of all, Johnson and GC signed the sales agreement that included all legal and necessary terms for an enforceable and valid contract. According to articles 2-301, 2-306, and 2-504 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), GC undertook a commitment to deliver products, and Johnson’s company was responsible for their acceptance and payment (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). The seller has supplied the cases in a time-sensitive manner.
As a buyer, Johnson accepted all cases of Window Sheen cleaner without inspection and stored the goods in a garage storage facility. However, liquid cleaners were subsequently discovered frozen, and the buyer wants to replace products in accordance with article 2-602 of the UCC (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). However, it will be impossible for Johnson to prove that cleaners arrived in an inappropriate condition and allocate responsibilities for their change to GC as the buyer did not inspect products immediately after their arrival. In other words, high-quality cleansers could subsequently freeze during storage in the garage. Johnson’s requirement to replace products may be regarded as the violation of article 2-603 of the UCC. The buyer should be conducted exclusively by the principles of good faith. He should request the seller to replace goods only when he is not responsible for its damage.
References
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). U.C.C. – Article 2 – Sales (2002). Cornwell Law School. Web.
Uniform Law Commission. (n.d.). Uniform Law Commission. 2020, Web.