CHAPTER 22: PERFORMANCE AND BREACH OF SALES AND LEASE CONTRACTS 21
Footnote 2: U.S. Golf & Tennis Centers, Inc. agreed to buy 96,000 golf balls from Wilson Sporting Goods
Co. for $20,000. Wilson stated that U.S. Golf was receiving the lowest price ($5 per two-dozen unit). Wilson shipped
conforming balls, but U.S. Golf did not pay. U.S. Golf claimed that Wilson had sold the same product to another buyer
for $2 per unit and asked for a price reduction. Wilson refused, and filed suit to collect the full price. The court entered
a judgment in Wilson’s favor. U.S. Golf appealed
Does the outcome in this case mean that the other buyer has to pay the same price for its balls that
U.S. Golf was ordered to pay? No. In the facts of this case, neither party’s contract has any bearing or effect on the
other party’s contract.
Suppose that U.S. Golf had presented as evidence a contract between Wilson and another buyer a
month after this shipment was delivered to U.S. Golf. In that contract, Wilson agreed to sell the same golf
balls for $4.00 per unit to a different buyer. Would the court have ruled differently in this dispute? Why or
why not? Most likely, the court would not have ruled differently under this circumstance. The second contract would
Under what circumstances might Wilson have agreed with U.S. Golf to reduce the contract price?
When a seller tenders conforming goods, the buyer is obligated to accept and pay for the goods. But when a seller
tenders nonconforming goods, the buyer has other options. The buyer can insist that the goods be replaced with
conforming goods, or if that is not possible, the parties may agree to a price reduction or other change in terms.
In this case, what provision in the parties’ contract was at the heart of their dispute? The provision in the
contract between Wilson Sporting Goods Co. and U.S. Golf & Tennis Centers, Inc., that was at the heart of their
dispute was the price term. Arthur Bell, one of the owners of U.S. Golf, sought confirmation that his company was
paying the “lowest price” for an order of 96,000 “second-hand” golf balls. In response, Wilson confirmed that U.S. Golf
was buying the balls for the lowest price “that Wilson offered to any one in the market.”
What did the court rule on the dispute between these parties? Why? In Wilson’s suit filed in a Tennessee
state court against U.S. Golf to recover the price for the 96,000 second-hand golf balls, the court entered a judgment in
favor of Wilson and awarded the seller $33,099.28, including interest, attorney's fees, and other expenses. On U.S.
Golf’s appeal, a state intermediate appellate court affirmed the judgment and award.
The defendant argued that the goods in this case failed to conform to the contract because, according to the
defense, Wilson did not charge U.S. Golf the “lowest price” for the order. This gave the buyer the right to reject the
goods and cancel the contract, which is what occurred.