Machlett (D) ordered from Plateq (P) two lead covered steel tanks. The tanks were designed for testing x-ray tubes and were required to be radiation proof as per federal standards. The contract provided that the tanks would be tested for radiation leaks after installation at D’s premises. P accepted the liability for any defects that post-installation testing might uncover. P had never done this type of business before, and D had never designed such tanks before. P encountered difficulties, and D only called the delays to P’s attention. Eventually, the tanks were completed, and D’s engineer noted some remaining deficiencies, but P promised to fix them and deliver the next day. There was no indication that D was upset. D’s engineer led P to believe that D’s truck would pick up the tanks. Instead, D sent notice of cancellation. P got it three days later on October 11. The notice had no particular grounds for the cancellation. P sued D for damages measured by the contract price and incidental damages for a wrongful cancellation. The trial court determined that D had accepted the tanks under the UCC 2-606 (1)(a) and (1)(b). The court reasoned that D could have then rejected under 2-608 only by showing substantial impairment of value which had not been proven at trial. Under 2-703 and 709(1)(b), P got a recovery of $14,837.92. D appealed.