Business law essay questions

 
Case: Zion Temple First Pentecostal Church of Cincinnati, Ohio, Inc. v Brighter Day Bookstore & Gifts[1]
Facts: Zion Temple First Pentecostal Church ordered new choir robes from Brighter Day Bookstore, a retailer that sold robes manufactured by Murphy Cap & Gown.
      When Brighter Day delivered the robes to the Zion Temple, the church members found many faults. They did not like the color or material, which they considered very different from a sample they had reviewed at Brighter Day. The sleeves had been attached facing the wrong way. And on the overlays, the Velcro and tags were visible.
      Zion complained to Murphy. The manufacturer offered to repair the sleeves, but Zion declined the offer because of the other problems. Zion returned the robes, and when it failed to get its money back, filed suit.
      The trial court gave summary judgment for the defendants, and Zion Temple appealed.
Issue: Did Zion Temple afford Murphy a chance to cure?
Holding: Judgment for Murphy reversed and case remanded
Excerpts from Judge Doan’s Decision: The record shows that the choir members actually inspected the robes when Brighter Day delivered them and Zion found what it deemed to be nonconformities. This inspection was reasonable and was made within a reasonable time. Thus, Zion never accepted the robes, but instead rejected them as not conforming to the contract. Since Zion rejected the goods, Murphy had a right to cure.
      Murphy offered to cure any problem with the sleeves. Where the buyer rejects a non-conforming tender which the seller had reasonable ground to believe would be acceptable with or without money allowance, the seller may, if he seasonably notifies the buyer, have a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender. Murphy manufactured the sleeves on the robes according to its design specifications. Because of an error in the catalog that Zion had consulted before placing its order, the sleeves as properly manufactured appeared different from the sleeves as depicted in the catalog. Murphy clearly had the right to cure this nonconformity and indicated its intention to do so within a reasonable time.
      Zion had o
ther reasons for contending that the robes did not conform to the contract. It claimed that Velcro was visible on the reversible overlays and that the tags on the overlays could be seen when the overlays were reversed. Murphy never indicated its intention to cure these alleged nonconformities. Consequently, the trial court erred in granting Murphy’s motion for summary judgment.
      We reverse the entry of summary judgment for Murphy and remand this case for trial or further proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion.
Question: Why does the UCC require that a seller have a chance to cure?