This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Riccardi (D) needed a hearing aid and was prescribed an A-660. D was told by Bartus (P) that the A-660 had been improved and that D should purchase the improved model A-665. After taking delivery of the A-665, D returned it complaining that it did not meet his prescription. P then informed D that he would replace it with the model A-660 as originally ordered. D refused to accept the replacement. P sued for the unpaid balance of the contract for the A-665. P alleged that he had the right to cure even after the rejection of the model as nonconforming.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.