Gonzalez v. Waskin

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Gonzalez v. Waskin

31 Va. Cir. 36, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 182

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedFebruary 19, 1993

DocketCase No. (Law) 99178

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Va. Cir. 36 (Gonzalez v. Waskin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonzalez v. Waskin, 31 Va. Cir. 36, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 182 (Va. Super. Ct. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge William G. Plummer

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. The motion is denied for the reason set out below, and judgment will be entered for the Plaintiff.

Defendant argues that since the buyer has not formally rejected the goods, the law implies acceptance. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. In order for the buyer to have the opportunity to reject, the goods must be tendered for delivery. The Court holds that this has not been done. The letter from the Attorney to the buyer can in no way be interpreted as a proper tender of deliver under either Code Section 8.2- 106(1) or 8.2-508(2). Therefore, Defendant’s recitation of 8.2- 601 is irrelevant. Since delivery has never been tendered, there has been no opportunity for the buyer to inspect and reject or accept the goods. Also, making the execution of a waiver a condition precedent to delivery of the goods placed a constraint on the transaction which was not in the original agreement between the parties.

There having been no tender of delivery, the Court finds that the Defendant has breached the contract and the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge William G. Plummer

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. The motion is denied for the reason set out below, and judgment will be entered for the Plaintiff.

Defendant argues that since the buyer has not formally rejected the goods, the law implies acceptance. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. In order for the buyer to have the opportunity to reject, the goods must be tendered for delivery. The Court holds that this has not been done. The letter from the Attorney to the buyer can in no way be interpreted as a proper tender of deliver under either Code Section 8.2- 106(1) or 8.2-508(2). Therefore, Defendant’s recitation of 8.2- 601 is irrelevant. Since delivery has never been tendered, there has been no opportunity for the buyer to inspect and reject or accept the goods. Also, making the execution of a waiver a condition precedent to delivery of the goods placed a constraint on the transaction which was not in the original agreement between the parties.

There having been no tender of delivery, the Court finds that the Defendant has breached the contract and the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Va. Cir. 36, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-waskin-vaccfairfax-1993.