Legal Opinion

GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Shook

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 6, 1973No. 7228SC720PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant-buyer was entitled to inspect the goods after their arrival. G.S. 25-2-513(1). Since part of the goods failed to conform to the contract, the buyer could accept any commercial unit and reject the rest. G.S. 25-2-601 (c). Such rejection must have been made within, a reasonable time after delivery and the plaintiff-seller seasonably notified. Defendant was also under a duty after rejection to hold the rejected goods with reasonable care at the seller’s disposition for a time sufficient to permit the seller to remove them. Nothing else appearing, the buyer had no further…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Matthews v. Fry.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. Mitchell v. BarfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. Eley v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Heating & Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. v. MyerlyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  2. HEATING & AIR COND. ASSOC., INC. v. MyerlyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Lykins Oil Co. v. FekkosClermont County Court of Common Pleas · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API