{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Brief Wilson v. Scampoli - Issue Did Scampoli breach the...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cameron Hartman 11/17/09 Seat #59 WILSON v. SCAMPOLI Facts: The Plaintiff, Wilson, purchased a television from the Defendant, Scampoli, on November  4 th , 1965, which was evidenced by a sales receipt that included a 90 day warranty. The set was  delivered two days later, but the television’s picture had a red tinge to it. Scampoli’s delivery  man noted that it was not his job to do services on the television, but that he would notify a  service representative. After the service representative failed to fix the television, he issued a  memorandum noting that the television “needs shop work” and needed to take the television to  his shop. The Plaintiff refused to allow the service representative to take the television, as she  wanted a new one, so she demanded the return of the purchase price (while retaining the set).    History: The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Wilson.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Issue: Did Scampoli breach the contract due to a breach of perfect tender to the plaintiff, Wilson? Decision: No, the trial courts decision was reversed. Reasons: The UCC provides that The seller, then, should be able to cure the defect under subsection in those cases in which he can do so without subjecting the buyer to any great inconvenience, risk, or loss. A minor repair falls within the above UCC clause requirements. Also, the removal of a television chassis for a short period of time does not result in a great inconvenience to the buyer. The Plaintiff refused to allow the defendant full access to the television so that the problem may have been rectified; thus, the defendant is not liable and did not show a breach of warranty....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}