|
Even if the buyer were a merchant and based upon the facts adduced so far, the goods fail to comply with UCC 2-314 (2)(a) regarding the implied warranty of merchantability. Specifically, the aftermarket crystal does not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description. The entire watch was represented, either expressly or implicitly, as an authentic Rolex. The aftermarket part was not disclosed, and Rolex deemed it to be a counterfeit crystal as confirmed independently by at least one member here. To date, the seller has not disputed that the crystal was aftermarket; therefore, his silence is deemed to be an admission as a matter of law.
Further, the goods were rejected within a reasonable period after discovery of the defect. The watch was represented by the seller as being in excellent condition; therefore, the buyer had no reason to take it in to Rolex until the battery died. Certainly, the buyer could not have discovered the defect upon reasonable examination, but it was the seller's responsibility to ensure that the watch was as advertised, even if that meant taking it apart or sending it in to Rolex for authentication. Apparently, the watch was not as advertised and the seller did neither of those things. Once the buyer was apprised of the non - conformity, it appears that he notified the seller timely, thereby satisfying the statutory requisites.
|