## Facts

- C.R. Daniels, Inc. (Daniels) designed and manufactured grass-catcher bags (and related frames) for Yazoo Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Yazoo), to be used with Yazoo’s “S” series lawn mowers.
- On October 23, 1981, Yazoo issued a purchase order for 20,000 bags so Daniels could begin ordering materials; Yazoo later approved the bag design in December 1981 and approved the frames in February 1982.
- The parties’ agreement was reflected in a series of Yazoo purchase orders signed by Yazoo’s president, James Kerr; later purchase orders primarily adjusted delivery schedules and price terms rather than changing the overall quantities ordered.
- After initial shipments, Yazoo requested a packaging change from bulk packaging to smaller boxed quantities; in the new packages, the bag chutes were flattened.
- In June 1982, Kerr saw evidence that some bag chutes were cracking. A damaged bag was shown to Daniels, and Daniels attributed the damage to abuse (including tire marks) and continued production.
- On July 5, 1982, Yazoo issued a purchase order stating, “Do not ship anything else as we were forced to shut down by CPSC law effective 6/30/82. Will advise new shipping SKD in September 82.” By that date, Yazoo had received 8,368 bags and 4,466 frames.
- In July and again in September 1982, Daniels and Yazoo discussed scheduling; Kerr expected regulatory relief and later obtained an exemption, but he did not provide a new delivery schedule and did not clearly state that Yazoo would refuse the remaining goods.
- On October 14, 1982, Kerr sent Daniels a photocopy of the July 5 purchase order with “canceled” written on it, without explanation, and without canceling other outstanding orders in the same manner.
- Yazoo continued trying to sell the bags, continued indicating it expected to sell them, and destroyed allegedly defective bags rather than keeping them for evaluation.
- Only after Daniels’ attorney demanded payment did Yazoo’s counsel, for the first time, communicate specific complaints that a large number of bags were defective; an inspection of Yazoo’s remaining inventory showed that most (about 92%) had cracked chutes.
- Daniels sued under Mississippi’s UCC remedies to recover amounts due for goods Yazoo had accepted and for Yazoo’s failure to take and pay for the balance of the ordered bags and frames. Yazoo denied liability and counterclaimed for breach of express and implied warranties and related damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties formed an enforceable contract for specified quantities through Yazoo’s series of purchase orders and the parties’ performance.
2. Whether Yazoo effectively canceled, modified, or suspended its contractual obligations based on the July 5, 1982 purchase order language, later communications, and the CPSC-related disruption.
3. Whether Yazoo accepted the goods it received, or instead made a timely and effective rejection or revocation of acceptance based on the alleged cracking defect.
4. Whether Yazoo gave timely, sufficiently specific notice of breach to preserve warranty remedies and prove its counterclaim for damages.

## Decision

- The court found a binding contract existed for the quantities reflected in the purchase orders, supported by the parties’ conduct and Daniels’ production in reliance on the orders.
- The court held Yazoo’s July 5, 1982 instruction not to ship was, at most, a temporary shipment stop tied to the stated regulatory issue and did not end Yazoo’s obligations for the ordered quantities; Yazoo’s later “canceled” notation on a photocopied purchase order was not an effective cancellation or modification.
- The court concluded Yazoo accepted the goods it had received, based on its retention and commercial handling of the inventory (including continued sales efforts and destruction of goods), and Yazoo did not make a seasonable, effective rejection or revocation.
- The court determined Yazoo’s defect complaints and notice were not timely or adequately communicated to Daniels to support Yazoo’s asserted defenses and warranty counterclaims, particularly given Yazoo’s continued conduct indicating ownership and its failure to preserve the goods.
- Judgment was entered for Daniels on its claim for amounts due under the contract (including recovery tied to goods accepted and relief for Yazoo’s failure to perform as to the remaining ordered goods), and Yazoo took nothing on its counterclaim.

## Legal Principles

- Under UCC contract rules, a sales contract may be shown by the parties’ writings (including a sequence of purchase orders) and by performance, even without a single integrated document.
- A buyer accepts goods when it fails to make an effective rejection after a reasonable opportunity to inspect or when it acts inconsistently with the seller’s ownership, such as treating goods as inventory for resale or disposing of them as its own. (UCC § 2-606)
- Rejection must be within a reasonable time and requires notice to the seller; revocation of acceptance requires timely notice and a qualifying nonconformity that substantially impairs value. (UCC §§ 2-602, 2-608)
- A buyer must notify the seller of breach within a reasonable time after it discovers (or should discover) the breach; delayed or vague notice can bar warranty recovery. (UCC § 2-607)
- Regulatory disruption may justify delay in shipment or performance in some settings, but it does not, by itself, end a quantity obligation where the buyer later obtains relief and does not make a clear, legally effective cancellation or repudiation. (UCC § 2-615)

## Conclusion

The court treated the parties’ purchase orders and performance as creating a binding quantity contract and held that Yazoo’s later “canceled” notation and CPSC-related explanations did not end its obligations. Because Yazoo retained and tried to sell the bags, destroyed inventory, and did not timely give specific notice supporting rejection, revocation, or warranty damages, the court awarded Daniels contractual recovery and denied Yazoo’s warranty counterclaims.


C.R. Daniels, Inc. v. Yazoo Manufacturing Co., 641 F. Supp. 205 (1986)