§

Fashionwear

03 Civ. 5597 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2006)
Fashionwear

4 Citing cases

  1. First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. Airborne, Inc.

    261 F. Supp. 3d 371 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)

    The UCC "recognizes the ‘perfect tender’ rule: ‘the policy of requiring exact performance by the seller of his obligations as a condition to his right to require acceptance." ’ Fashionwear (PVT) Ltd. v. Regatta (U.S.A.) LLC. , No. 03 Civ 5597 (JFK), 2006 WL 695256, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2006) (quoting UCC § 2–106 cmt. 2); seeAustrian Airlines Oesterreichische Luftverkehrs AG , 567 F.Supp.2d at 592 ("New York recognizes the ‘perfect tender’ rule."). "[I]f the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may ... reject the whole...." N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2–601.

  2. CVD Equip. Corp. v. Taiwan Glass Indus. Corp.

    10-CV-573 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    This nonconformity afforded Taiwan Glass the right, upon tender of delivery in Taiwan, to reject the goods. See id. § 2-601(a) ("[I]f the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may . . . reject the whole . . . ."); Fashionwear (PVT) Ltd. v. Regatta (U.S.A.) LLC, 03-CV-5597, 2006 WL 695256, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2006). Taiwan Glass did, in fact, reject the shipped goods, and CVD did not seek to cure its improper tender of delivery.

  3. Ho Myung Moolsan Co. v. Manitou Mineral Water, Inc.

    07 Civ. 07483 (RJH) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2010)   Cited 20 times
    In Ho Myung Moolsan v. Manitou Mineral Water, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127869 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2010), the plaintiff offered only projections of sales of bottles of water in support of its lost profits claim, with no documentary evidence to support the projections.

    As this district has recognized, the definition of an installment contract includes coverage of "installment deliveries tacitly authorized by the circumstances or by the option of either party." N.Y.U.C.C. § 2-612 cmt. 1; see Fashionwear (PVT) Ltd. v. Regatta (U.S.A.) LLC, No. 03 Civ. 5597 (JFK), 2006 WL 695256, at *3 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. March 17, 2006). Each delivery of a separate lot need not even be separately paid for. N.Y.U.C.C. § 2-612 N.Y. annot. 1. Additionally, a contract that:

  4. Austrian Airlines Oesterreichische Luftverkehrs AG v. UT Finance Corp.

    567 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Determining that language obligating the plaintiff to deliver the aircraft "in accordance with all of the delivery conditions contained in th[e] [a]greement and that [the defendant] ha[d] no obligation to purchase the [a]ircraft in the event such delivery conditions [were] not met" entitled the defendant to reject the aircraft if the plaintiff "failed to satisfy the delivery conditions in any way, no matter how insignificant"

    See Tr. (Kotzian) at 94:6-96:12; Tr. (Whelan) at 134:23-136:14, 138:13-139:3.See UCC § 2-601(a) ("[I]f the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may . . . reject the whole"); see Fashionwear (PVT) Ltd. v. Regatta (U.S.A.) LLC, No. 03 Civ. 5597 (JFK), 2006 WL 695256, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2006). As an initial matter, Austrian does not assert that the parties changed the delivery deadline in writing, as the APA would have required.