Rad Concepts, Inc. v. Wilks Precision Instrument Co., Inc.

¹³⁶ DAVIS, Judge. Rad Concepts, Inc. (hereinafter RAD), appeals from the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Woodward, J., presiding), at a bench trial, in favor of appellee, Wilks Precision Instrument Company, Inc. (hereinafter WPIC), in the amount of $119,142.10 for RAD’s breach of contract and the dismissal of the claims and counterclaims of appellant. On this appeal, RAD presents the following questions for our review, which we set forth verbatim: Question No. 1. Did WPIC breach Contract #1 at least as early as October 2000, again on January 25, 2001, and again on February 1, 2001, by demanding that RAD pay immediately over $100,000 before any product (not even one unit) would be supplied, notwithstanding the fact that under the “creative financing” Contract #1 RAD needed only a few dollars, if any at all, to obtain one, or a few, of the 5,000 units.

Question No. 2. Did WPIC breach Contract #1 in August 2000 when it did not send RAD a sample of the product and obtain RAD’s approval, after tooling was complete and before production began of the 5,000 units? Question No. 3. Did the court err in holding that RAD repudiated Contract #1 in a telephone call on February 5, 2001?

Question No. 4. Was the court’s findings that RAD repudiated Contract #1 in a telephone call based on sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case? Question No. 5. Did the trial court err in relying on a statute Comm [sic] Law 2-609 and 2-610; in view of: A. Bernstein’s letter of January 25, 2001 was not a proper written “demand” under Sec. 2-609 since it required RAD to show facts not called for in Contract #1.

Question No. 6. On February 13, 2001, WPIC wrote its lawyer Bernstein, saying “The reason we have felt it necessary to take this action is due to the belligerent and accusatory attitude taken by Mr. Strawder on some occa ¹³⁷ sions.” Legal issue: Can Sec. 2-609, and the various contract issues in this case be upheld in view of such facts? Question No. 7. Where Contract #1 provides for RAD’s right of approval of the final product, did the Court err in deciding that the final product met the contract requirement?

Moreover, since WPIC admitted that the final product had marks on them and that there was a “cosmetic problem” did RAD have the final say as to whether the 5,000 units met the terms of the contract? FACTUAL BACKGROUND This appeal arises from claims of breach of contract between former business associates involved in the manufacturing and selling of radiology equipment. According to Thomas B. Wilks, President of WPIC, he met with Glenn Strawder of RAD in February of 1998 “to give [him] some budgetary quotes so he knew what he was looking at for costing on tooling and piece parts costs” for the manufacture of a patented x-ray cassette holder. Appellant sought this information to determine how much capital would be required to launch this new venture.

WPIC was impressed with the cassette holder and, accordingly, informed appellant that no “up front” money would be required with creative financing. With this specialized financing, RAD was able to have the tooling for two steel molds for its project amortized into the unit price. RAD explained that, although it had approximately $30,000 to pay to WPIC at the initiation of the contract, WPIC instructed appellant to use that money for advertising instead. The parties did not draft a formal agreement until two years later.

WPIC submitted a proposed contract to appellant to which the latter responded by proposing an amendment that provided for RAD to improve the sample and the finished product. WPIC agreed to the amendment and the final contract read as follows: Contract #1 Under this heading the original Contract #1, plus its amendments, and testimony relating thereto are set forth. The original Contract #1 of February 22, 2000 reads as follows: ¹³⁸ Date: 02/22/00 To: Rad Concepts Fax #: 301-488-9433 From: Tom Total # of Pages: 2 Dear Glen [sic], This company is pleased to submit the following quotation for your review: one (1) Single Cavity Production Mold to Produce Tray and one (1) Single Cavity Production Mold to Produce I-Beam (Including engineering drawings)........................... $62,948.00 Parts Molded in the Above Molds from Black ABS (including 2 ea. Holes drilled and tapped in the tray, and 2 ea.

Thumb Screws per Set)................................ $10.63/Set Note: One Set = One Tray and One I-Beam Tooling amortization on 5,000 Sets....................$12.59 Total Parts Costs for Initial Order of 5,000 Sets____$23.22 each Special Packaging will be quoted upon request. Delivery: Samples in Twelve (12) to Fourteen (14) weeks, after receipt of Order and Approval of Drawing(s) by Rad Concepts, Ine/Glenn Strawder. F.O.B.: Our Plant Terms: Tooling cost(s) to be amortized over initial order of 5,000 sets (as discussed above) purchased within one (1) calendar year of tooling completion and approval of Samples/Finish Sets. Net 30 Days for production, upon approval of Credit.

Shipping will be UPS (ppd & add). Ownership of Tooling will transfer upon timely payment of parts invoices totaling at least 5,000 sets. Please note: Future orders will carry a Mold Set-up Charge of $350.00 per Mold per run. Minimum quantities may be required due to vendor requirements on the Thumbscrews.

Lastly, we request that Rad Concepts, Inc/Glenn Strawder purchase all injection molded products covered under U.S. Patent #6,017,149 from WPIC for a period of at least five (5) years from approval of Sample/Finish Set. We hope this quotation meets with your approval and you favor us with your order. ¹³⁹ Very truly yours, (Signed) We incorporate the factual background and ruling as set forth in the circuit court’s Memorandum Opinion, excluding footnotes and citations to the record: 1 Pursuant to the contract, WPIC produced steel molds for the tray and I-Beam bar in accordance with the drawings approved by Mr. Strawder. Although the drawings specified 7/16" brass screws, the sample screw provided to WPIC by Mr. Strawder was “off size” and smaller than a standard 7/16" screw. Mr. Wilks suggested, and Mr. Strawder agreed, to use a smaller 3/8" screw because it was less expensive.

However, Mr. Strawder wanted to see how the smaller screw worked before committing RAD to the purchase of 10,000 screws for the 5,000 cassette holders. Accordingly, by letter dated May 5, 2000, Mr. Wilks offered to provide 500 smaller “thumb screws” for RAD at a cost of $2.75 each. On May 16, 2000, Ms. Mott [Vice President of RAD] noted her agreement on Mr. Wilks’ May 5 letter. On June 19, 2000, WPIC completed production of the first 47 cassette holders or units and notified RAD that the units were ready for delivery.

On the same day, Mr. Strawder and Ms. Mott went to the WPIC plant, picked up the units and paid the full amount due, as set forth in Invoice No. 14327, for the 47 holders and the remaining 406 screws (94 screws were used in the 47 units). However, a letter dated June 19, 2000, was delivered to WPIC reducing RAD’s initial order of 5,000 units to 703 units and 1,000 screws. According to Mr. Strawder, WPIC responded with the following: if RAD raised the order back to 5,000 units, (1) RAD would not have to pick up the entire 5,000 units at one time; (2) RAD would be invoiced only for the amount it picked up; and (3) RAD would not have to pay for the “first couple of batches of’ cassette holders until ¹⁴⁰ RAD sold and collected money from its customers. On July 17, 2000, Ms. Mott cancelled the order for 703 units and reinstated the initial order for 5,000 units by sending WPIC the following letter: “Please void our order dated June 19, 2000.

We now request an order of 5,000 holders and 10,000 screws.” The first 47 units were rejected by RAD because of scratch marks on the surface of the trays. Mr. Wilks then suggested texturing the surfaces of the trays to reduce the scratch marks and offered to replace, without charge, the 47 holders with textured trays. On July 28, 2000, after RAD agreed to pay $2,300.00 for texturing the 5,000 units and $400.00 for freight, WPIC faxed a letter confirming such charges and the continued use of the smaller screws WPIC had employed in the first 47 holders. Ms. Mott replied to WPIC with a hand-written note agreeing to amortizing the new charges but objecting to the smaller screws and requesting the larger screws specified in the drawings.

Ms. Kelvie [Office Manager for WPIC] then calculated the new amortization charge by crediting the amortization amount paid by RAD on the 47 units (Invoice No. 14327) and adding the texturing and freight costs. The result was an increase in the amortization charge for the 5,000 holders from $12.59 to $13.00 per unit. Mr. Wilks also agreed to use the larger screws in the 5,000 holders. On August 1, 2000, WPIC sent the 800-pound steel mold to an outside vendor for engraving texture on the surfaces of the tray mold.

In order to use up the previously ordered 500 smaller screws, Mr. Strawder verbally placed an order with WPIC for 195 units in early August. On August 23, 2000, after receiving the textured mold, WPIC began running the order of 195 units and the replacement of the 47 original holders. On August 25, 2000, RAD picked up the 242 units from the WPIC plant without inspection and without making any payment and immediately began to fill the orders received from its customers. On August 31, 2000, WPIC sent RAD Invoice No. 14415 for the 195 units, which invoice reflected the new amortization charge of $13.00 per unit.

Mr. Straw- ¹⁴¹ der requested time to pay this invoice and Mr. Wilks agreed to payment by January 1, 2001, but if not paid by that date, WPIC would impose interest at the rate of 1.5% per month accruing from the original due date of September 30, 2000. On December 4, 2000, Ms. Mott submitted a payment of $1,000.00 toward Invoice No. 14415 with a hand-written note saying: “Tell Tom that this is a partial payment on Invoice No. 14415. Thank you for your patience. We hope to pay the rest as soon as possible.” RAD made no further payments on Invoice No. 14415.

By the end of December 2000, RAD had sold 39 units at $249.00 per unit, for a total revenue of $9,711. Meanwhile, on August 23, 2000, WPIC began to manufacture the 5,000 holders. A sample holder from the final run of 5,000 units was sent on September 11, 2000 to RAD for its approval. On September 14, 2000, Ms. Mott telephoned Ms. Kelvie and acknowledged the receipt of the sample.

According to Ms. Kelvie, Ms. Mott said, “It looked wonderful. Go with it.” Ms. Kelvie also [stated] that she discussed with Ms. Mott a new amortization amount for the tooling costs based upon the balance of such costs after payment on the previous invoices, plus the texturing, spread over the 5.000 units ordered by RAD. Ms. Kelvie memorialized Ms. Mott’s approval of the September 11 sample by writing “Parts approved 9/15 [sic]/00” on RAD’s July 17 order for 5.000 holders. Ms. Kelvie also noted the new amortization cost by writing on the same document the following: * New 65,000.00 Amort <2,535.00> Inv. #14415 62,465.00 Conversely, Ms. Mott [explained] that she did not recall ever making such statement but remembered having told Ms. Kelvie that Mr. Strawder would evaluate the sample and get back to WPIC.

Mr. Strawder also [stated] that he never approved the September 11 sample. After the Mott-Kelvie telephone conversation, WPIC completed the final order of 5,000 units on September 19, 2000. WPIC did not notify RAD of the completion of the 5.000 units, and RAD never picked up any of these units. ¹⁴² In a letter dated December 12, 2000, Mr. Strawder wrote to Mr. Wilks the following: Hi Tom, How is everything? Hope life is good!

Do you need any help spending your money? (Smile) Tell you why I’m writing. Please find enclosed one of the 200-plus holders of RAD Concepts, Inc. from our first shipment from you. Please look at the top surface of the bar.

Can you tell us why there are all of those scratches? Lori [Mott] checked most of the boxes of holders we received from you and all of them are like this. Do you know what happened? Are these marks permanent?

Or can it be corrected? Do you think these are major marks? How did it get past your peoples [sic]? Do you think that the others you have made up are damaged like this too?

Tom when we talked about the plate like portion of the holder being fabricated so that it would look better then [sic] originally shown us, the bar did not have these majors [sic] marks on the top surface. I do not want to get any of your employees in trouble but someone is always doing something that I do not believe is normal in your industry. We are receiving units that have mistakes to [sic] often. You know Tom how important it is for us to make a good first impression.

You know this is a brand new product and we need to make a good start. HELP US!!!!! Sincerely, Glenn After several unsuccessful attempts to contact RAD in order to respond to the above letter, Mr. Wilks referred the matter to WPIC’s attorney, Damon Bernstein. Mr. Bernstein wrote a letter to RAD dated January 25, 2001, notifying it of the completion of 5,000 units and requesting assurances of performance.

In that letter, Mr. Bernstein wrote the following: ¹⁴³ ... Under the agreements between the parties, WPIC has produced the items requested and it stands ready to deliver the balance of the order. Apparently, after you recognized the extent of your delinquency in making payment, a letter was sent questioning the quality of the final product. To the extent that the units have a blemish, this can readily be corrected.

However, WPIC has every reason to question RAD’s ability and intentions with regard to payment. Therefore, you must provide actual payment or assurances acceptable to WPIC that the amounts due will be paid within a time certain which is acceptable to WPIC, before any further product or corrective action will be furnished ... ¹⁴⁴ to spend all of its money on marketing, advertising, shipping, and billing the product to its customers. Nevertheless, RAD would continue to make installment payments of $150.00 per month as promised in Mr. Strawder’s February 5 letter. ¹⁴³ Before he could respond to Mr. Bernstein’s letter, Mr. Strawder received a telephone call from Mr. Wilks on February 5, 2001. During the conversation, which became acrimonious, Mr. Wilks said, “If we cannot sort things out, maybe our lawyers can.” In turn, Mr. Strawder said that he was never going to buy the “trashes” WPIC produced.

On the same day, Mr. Strawder wrote a letter to Mr. Bernstein stating that he could not understand why Mr. Bernstein was claiming that RAD owed WPIC for the 5,000 units when Mr. Wilks mentioned a past due amount of only $1,500.00. Mr. Strawder then offered to make installment payments of at least $150.00 per month until the debt was satisfied. On February 10, 2001, RAD received Invoice No. 1144 from WPIC for $118,150.00, which covered the manufacturing costs and tooling amortization for 5,000 units. Mr. Strawder wrote Mr. Bernstein a second letter dated February 20, 2001 complaining that half of the 242 units had I-Beam bars with scratch marks, which prevented the sale of these units to RAD’s customers.

He demanded that the scratched I-Beam bars be replaced with new ones. Mr. Strawder also demanded that WPIC give an explanation concerning the scratch marks on the I-Beam bars because he could not believe Mr. Wilks’ claim that those marks were normal and part of the molding process. Regarding future payments to WPIC, Mr. Strawder stated that RAD needed ¹⁴⁴ In the year 2000, RAD sold 14 cassette holders during the month of August, 16 in September, 6 in October, 2 in November, and 1 in December. Thereafter, RAD sold 37 more units until January 3, 2002.

Out of a total of 76 holders sold, RAD received only 3 back from its customers. WPIC filed its Complaint on December 4, 2001, requesting judgment against appellant for the outstanding balance due and owing of $121,757.85 and interest in the amount of $8,446.33. Appellant filed an Amended Counterclaim against appellee on January 3, 2002, in which it set forth a prayer for damages of over $16,000,000 for appellee’s alleged breach of contract. After settlement discussions failed, the parties stipulated to proceeding by way of a bifurcated trial to determine separately the issues of liability and damages.

The circuit court granted the parties’ request on January 8, 2003. The court conducted a two-day bench trial on the issue of liability on June 30, 2003 and July 1, 2003, after which the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court heard closing arguments on November 13, 2003 and held the matter sub cuña. On January 12, 2005, the court issued its Memorandum Opinion, in which it announced that judgment would be entered in favor of WPIC on its claim and against RAD on its counterclaim: MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 ...

WPIC seeks to recover the amounts due for plastic trays and accompanying I-Beam bars manufactured by it ¹⁴⁵ under a contract with RAD. WPIC claims that RAD owes, after all credits and payments, $119,142.10. RAD denies liability to WPIC in any amount and counterclaims for alleged breaches of the contract by WPIC. RAD claims $16,050,128.00, plus interest and the costs of this action.

The trial was held without a jury and was limited to issues of liability. This court, having considered the testimony of all witnesses, the exhibits admitted into evidence, and the arguments of counsel, renders its findings of fact and conclusions of law. I. The Parties WPIC is a Maryland corporation that has been in the business of injection molding since 1945. WPIC manufactures molded plastic products through an injection process according to designs and specifications requested by customers.

Thomas Wilks, president and CEO of WPIC, and Sandra Kelvie, office manager, testified during trial. Michael Greco, vice president of WPIC, testified only by deposition, which was admitted into evidence. RAD, also a Maryland corporation, is a start up company organized to sell a U.S. patented x-ray cassette holder to hospitals and radiology offices. The holder consists of a plastic tray, I-Beam bar, and two brass screws to hold an x-ray cassette.

The holder has the unique ability to hold an x-ray cassette in an upright position while accommodating various positions of the patient. Glenn Strawder, president of RAD, is the inventor and the sole owner of the U.S. Patent for the x-ray cassette holder, which patent was granted on January 25, 2000. Mr. Strawder and Lori Mott, vice president of RAD, testified during the trial.

III

Present Controversy It is undisputed that WPIC and RAD executed an agreement dated February 22, 2000, for the manufacture of 5,000 x-ray cassette holders at a price of $23.22 per unit. Under the terms of the agreement, WPIC was required to produce a sample and a finished set of x-ray cassette holders for ¹⁴⁶ RAD’s approval. RAD also requested 195 additional units so that the 500 smaller screws could be used. WPIC contends that the 195 and 5,000 units are good and completely merchantable products manufactured under a single contract and that WPIC is entitled to judgment for breach of contract because RAD (1) failed to notify WPIC of its rejection or revocation of acceptance as to the 195 units and (2) repudiated the contract as to the 5,000 units by failing to give adequate assurances of its performance.

On the other hand, RAD contends that the 195 units were not a salable product and further avers that there were “two totally different separate contracts” (one for the 5,000 units and the other for 195 units) or that there was a “divisible contract” where a breach of one contract had no effect on the other. RAD claims that WPIC materially breached the contract for the 5,000 units by (1) failing to send RAD a sample of the tray and the I-Beam bar, by (2) not obtaining RAD’s approval before production, by (3) failing to notify RAD of the completion of the 5,000 units, and by (4) ceasing all further performance of the contract.

IV

Statement of Issues on the WPIC Complaint The question WPIC brings before this Court is whether WPIC is entitled to recover from RAD the contract amounts for the x-ray cassette holders WPIC produced pursuant to the contract dated February 22, 2000. This question raises three issues for resolution by this court. The first issue is whether the contracts for 195 and 5,000 units constitute a single contract or two separate contracts. The second issue is whether RAD is liable for the balance due on Invoice No. 14415 for the 195 units.

The third issue is whether WPIC is entitled to recover the contract price for the 5,000 units that were manufactured by WPIC but were never delivered to RAD. V. Contracts Issue One: Whether WPIC and RAD entered into a single contract or two separate contracts — one for the 195 units and another for 5,000 units? ¹⁴⁷ It is clear from the evidence that EAD’s oral request for 195 units in August 2000 was a contract for 195 units in addition to the 5,000 units contemplated by the February 22, 2000 agreement. RAD urgently needed a quantity of cassette holders in order to fill the orders from its customers. Mr. Strawder testified that orders for the holders were beginning to come in by August 2000.

However, the 5,000 units were not going to be ready because the larger screws that Mr. Strawder preferred would not arrive until September. Since the smaller screws were available, RAD wanted WPIC to quickly assemble 242 units (195 new ones plus 47 replacements) with the smaller screws so that RAD could immediately fill its orders. WPIC’s conduct is also evidence of the creation of two separate contracts. WPIC manufactured, delivered and billed RAD for 242 cassette holders using the smaller screws and then produced and billed RAD for 5,000 holders using the larger screws.

On the basis of these facts, the court finds that the parties entered two separate contracts — one for 195 units and another for 5,000 units.

VI

Liability on the Contract for 195 Units Issue Two: Whether RAD is liable for the balance due on Invoice No. 14415 for 195 units? (a) Acceptance The right of manufacturer [sic] of goods to recover the purchase price is to be determined under Maryland’s Uniform Commercial Code, which provides that the seller may recover the price of goods accepted when buyer fails to pay the price as it becomes due. Md. Com. Law Code Ann. § 2-709(l)(a).

The Code provides that acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer (i) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming, § 2-606(l)(a): (ii) fails to make an effective rejection after the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect, § 2-606(l)(b); or (ii)[sic] does any act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership, § 2-606(l)(c). ¹⁴⁸ This court finds that RAD accepted the 195 units by acting in a manner inconsistent with seller’s ownership. On August 25, 2000, Mr. Strawder and Ms. Mott picked up 242 units, including 47 replacements, from the WPIC premises and on August 28, 2000, RAD began to ship this product to its customers. RAD sold 89 units from the time of receipt until it complained about the scratch marks on the I-Beam bars on December 12, 2000. Thereafter, RAD sold 37 more units.

In addition, this court finds that RAD failed to make an effective rejection after having a reasonable opportunity to inspect. When Mr. Strawder and Ms. Mott picked up the 242 units on August 25, they had ample opportunity to inspect the product, but failed to do so. At trial Mr. Strawder testified that he called Mr. Wilks in August or September and rejected the 195 units. However, he was unable to produce any evidence corroborating such telephone call.

Mr. Strawder testified as follows: Q. What record do you have of that communication? A. What communication? Between? Q. How you communicated to Mr. Wilks?

A. You’ll have to take my word for it. Q. Do you have any telephone records memorializing that? A. Most of my calls, because Lori used the business phone most of the time. When Tom would call me he would call me either on the business phone or he’d call me on my home phone, a lot.

I would just pick my home phone up and call him. It was my company, I didn’t mind. Q. Do you have any telephone records of those? A. We have some records of the company calling Tom. * * * Q. Did you supply telephone records?

A. As a matter of fact we tried to supply you the phone records but the phone company does not produce them after a certain period of time and we let you know that. ¹⁴⁹ Q. So you don’t have any record of when you called? A. Of any of those I called? Q. When you called concerning rejection. A. A specific rejection?

Q. Of a specific rejection in August or September in the year 2000? A. We may have that. Q. You may have that? A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever supply it to me? A. Yes, you have the records of the phone calls that RAD made and I’m sure in October. Q. I’m talking about the records of your phone calls. A. My personal phone?

Q. Yes, sir. A. You know I can’t get those records. More importantly, Mr. Strawder’s letter dated December 12, 2000, in which he complained about the 242 units, does not expressly or impliedly refer to his August/September rejection call to Mr. Wilks. Mr. Strawder wrote: Hi Tom, How is everything?

Hope life is good. Do you need any help spending your money? (Smile) Tell you why I’m writing. Please find enclosed one of the 200-plus holders of Rad Concepts, Inc. from our first shipment from you.

Please look at the top surface of the bar. Can you tell us why there are all of those scratches? Lori checked most of the boxes of holders we received from you and all of them are like this. Do you know what happened?

Are these permanent? Or can it be corrected? ... (Emphasis added) The phrase “Tell you why I’m writing” followed by “Please look at the top surface of the bar,” “why there are all of those scratches,” and “Do you know what happened?” clearly imply that Mr. Strawder was complaining about the scratch marks for the first time. ¹⁵⁰ Finally, the December 12 letter does not expressly reject the 195 units. Although he demands an explanation about how the scratch marks occurred, nowhere does Mr. Straw-der specify what he wants WPIC to do about the “mistakes” in the units.

Indeed, Mr. Strawder does not state that RAD was then in the position of being unable to sell the units because of the scratch marks on the I-Beam bars. Only a week prior to Mr. Strawder’s December 12 letter, RAD sent WPIC a payment of $1,000.00 toward the invoice for the 195 units. A hand-written memo sent along with the payment does not mention any problem with the cassette holders. It reads as follows: HI SAM, TELL TOM THIS IS A PARTIAL PAYMENT ON INVOICE #14415.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE HOPE TO PAY THE REST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SINCERLY, [sic] LORI (b) Revocation of Acceptance Maryland cases have recognized the right to revoke acceptance conferred upon the buyer by Section 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code. See Lynx, Inc. v. Ordanance [sic] Products, Inc., 273 Md. 1, 15 , 327 A.2d 502 (1974); Hardy v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 120 Md.App. 261, 272 , 706 A.2d 1086 (1998); Champion Ford Sales, Inc. v. Levine, 49 Md.App. 547, 551-52 , 433 A.2d 1218 (1981).

To revoke an acceptance and avoid liability, the buyer must show that the defect substantially impairs the value of the goods. Md. Com. Law Code Ann. § 2-608(1). The court finds that RAD failed to show that there was a defect on the x-ray cassette holders that substantially impaired the value of the product.

The question of whether there exists a defect that substantially impairs the value to the buyer is “one of fact, to be decided by the jury on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.” Champion, 49 Md.App. at 554 , 433 ¹⁵¹ A.2d 1218. The Court of Special Appeals in Champion stated that “proof of substantial impairment requires more than the buyer’s subjective assertion that the value of the product to him was impaired: it requires evidence from which the trier of fact, applying objective standards, can infer that the needs of the buyer were not met because of the nonconformity.” Champion, 49 Md.App. at 554 , 433 A.2d 1218 . In the instant case, Mr. Strawder admitted that he sold the cassette holders to RAD’s customers, including Mr. Strawder’s own employer, regardless of scratch marks on the I-Beam bars. He testifies as follows: A. I picked up 195 plus 47 replacements in sealed boxes to take home to evaluate.

My job at the company is to evaluate this product. I would take it home and look at it and look at it over and over and over again and then I made a decision on it. Q. And what was your decision? A. I rejected everything he’s ever produced for me.

Q. Okay, you rejected, yet you sold some, 76 of them, didn’t you? A. I sure did, sir. Q. You did sell them? A. I sure did.

Q. Okay, and you even included sales to your own employer, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. You got money from them for it, is that correct? A. I sure did.

In addition, Mr. Strawder admitted on cross-examination that only 3 out of the 76 units sold were returned to RAD, and the reasons for the returns were not related to any alleged defect. From such evidence, this Court concludes that the needs of the [sic] RAD were met because it was able to sell the units without any demonstrable loss due to any alleged defect. ¹⁵² In light of the foregoing, the court finds that RAD is liable for the balance due on Invoice No. 14415.

VII

Liability on the Contract for the 5,000 Units Issue Three: Whether RAD is liable for the contract price for the 5,000 units? It is undisputed that the parties are bound by the contract dated February 22, 2000, which contract imposed upon WPIC a duty to produce 5,000 x-ray cassette holders, provided that RAD approved the samples and finished units. RAD contends that WPIC materially breached the contract by (1) failing to produce any sample, (2) failing to obtain approval of any sample, (3) failing to notify RAD of the completion of 5,000 units, and (4) failing to continuously perform its duties. WPIC responds that it (1) sent out a sample, (2) obtained RAD’s approval of the sample, (3) notified RAD of the completion of 5,000 units through WPIC’s attorney, and (4) withheld the units because RAD repudiated the contract.

Item, (1) — Production of Sample Item (1) is not in dispute because Ms. Kelvie and Ms. Mott both testified that a sample unit was sent by WPIC on September 11, 2000, and received by RAD. Item (2) — Approval of Sample The testimony of Ms. Kelvie and Ms. Mott is in conflict over the approval of the sample. Ms. Kelvie stated that Ms. Mott approved of the sample and told Ms. Kelvie to proceed with the final run of 5,000 units. Ms. Kelvie then discussed with Ms. Mott the new amortization amount for the 5,000 units.

Ms. Mott denied approving the sample and testified that she told Ms. Kelvie that Mr. Strawder would inspect the sample and get back to WPIC with his decision. Mr[J Strawder also testified that he never approved the sample. WPIC offered telephone records into evidence corroborating Ms. Kelvie’s testimony that she called RAD and left a message and received a return call from Ms. Mott. WPIC’s telephone records show that a call was made to RAD on ¹⁵³ September 13, 2000, for 33 seconds.

The telephone records of RAD show that a call was made to WPIC on September 14, 2000 for 2 minutes. Ms. Kelvie’s description of the conversation indicates that it could have been completed within the 2-minute time frame. Ms. Kelvie also made contemporaneous notes of her conversation with Ms. Mott. She wrote on RAD’s July 17 letter that the sample had been approved and that the new tooling cost, after credit for the amount of such cost billed for the 195 units on August 31, was $62,465.00.

While the date of the approval of the sample written by Ms. Kelvie is in error by one day, 9/15 instead of 9/14, such error does not vitiate the overall corroborating nature of this evidence. More importantly, Mr. Strawder’s December 12 letter contains language implying that Mr. Strawder was aware of Ms. Mott’s approval of the sample and believed that WPIC had completed the 5,000 units, as follows: Tell you why I’m writing. Please find enclosed one of the 200-plus holders of RAD Concepts, Inc. from our first shipment from you. Please look at the top surface of the bar.

Can you tell us why there are all of those scratches? Lori checked most of the boxes of holders we received from you and all of them are like this.... Do you think that the others you have made up are damaged like this too? [Emphasis added]. Because Mr. Strawder was writing the above letter to complain about scratch marks on the I-Beam bars from 242 units received on August 25, the only other units ordered by Mr. Strawder were the 5,000.

As such, the phrase “the others” must refer to the 5,000 units. Moreover, the phrase “the others you have made up” indicates that Mr. Straw-der was aware that approval for the final run of 5,000 units had been given and he believed that they had been produced. Finally, Mr. Strawder’s question about the condition of the 5,000 units is consistent with the undisputed fact that he had not picked up any of the 5,000 units. Item (3) — Notice of Completion ¹⁵⁴ WPIC’s telephone records support Mr. Wilks’ testimony that WPIC attempted to contact RAD with respect to the completion of 5,000 units and payment on Invoice No. 14415.

WPIC made calls to RAD in 2000 on 9/20, 9/21, 10/09, 10/10, 10/27, 10/30, 11/1, 11/2, 11/29, and 12/18 and in 2001 on 1/03 and 2/05. Furthermore, Mr. Bernstein’s letter to Mr. Strawder expressly stated that the 5,000 units were ready to deliver. Thus the court finds that WPIC did not fail to notify RAD of the completion of the 5,000 units. Item (4) — Reasonable Grounds to Suspend Performance Item (4) is concerned with an anticipatory repudiation by the buyer and the seller’s right to adequate assurance of performance under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Md. Com. Law Code Ann. §§ 2-609(1) & 2-610. Section 2-609(1) of the Commercial Law Article provides that “when reasonable grounds for insecurity arise with respect to the performance of either party the other may in writing demand adequate assurance of due performance and until he receives such assurance may if commercially reasonable suspend any performance for which he has not already received the agreed return.” Comment 2 of Section 2-610 of the Commercial Law Article states that “a repudiation automatically results ... when a party fails to provide adequate assurance of due future performance within thirty days after a justifiable demand therefor has been made.” Further, Comment 1 of Section 2-610 provides that when a repudiation substantially impairs the value of the contract, “the aggrieved party may at any time resort to his remedies for breach, ...” Therefore, the analysis for Item (4) encompasses three parts: (a) whether WPIC had reasonable grounds for insecurity so as to justifiably demand adequate assurance of due performance; (b) if so, whether RAD failed to provide adequate assurance so as to constitute a repudiation; and (c) if RAD is found to have repudiated, whether RAD’s repudiation substantially impaired the value of the contract to WPIC. See Md. Com.

Law Code Ann. § 2-610, Comment 2. (a) Reasonable grounds ¹⁵⁵ WPIC claims that it had reasonable grounds for insecurity so as to justifiably demand adequate assurances from RAD. Mr. Bernstein’s letter dated January 25, 2001, to RAD reads: ... WPIC has every reason to question RAD’s ability and intentions with regard to payment.

Therefore, you must provide actual payment or assurances acceptable to WPIC that the amounts due will be paid -within a time certain which is acceptable to WPIC ... [Emphasis added]. “[A] buyer who falls behind in ‘his account’ with the seller, even though the items involved have to do with separate and legally distinct contracts, impairs the seller’s expectation of due performance.” Md. Com. Law Code Ann. § 2-609, Comment 3. In the instant case, RAD picked up 195 units without paying and was allowed to postpone payment until it sold and collected money from its customers. While RAD sold 39 units as of January 1, 2001, which sales generated revenue of $9,711.00, RAD paid only $1,000 toward the invoice for the 195 units.

Moreover, as indicated above, Mr. Wilks made many attempts to contact Mr. Strawder regarding payment for the 195 units. This court finds that WPIC had reasonable grounds for insecurity because of RAD’s payment history and avoidance of telephone calls and WPIC could demand “actual payment or assurances acceptable to WPIC.” As such, WPIC could suspend further performance of the contract until payment or acceptable assurances were received from RAD. (b) Repudiation WPIC claims in its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that Mr. Strawder verbally repudiated the contract during his telephone conversation with Mr. Wilks on February 5, 2001. Mr. Wilks testified as follows: Q. Now, did there come a time subsequently when you had a telephone conversation with Mr. Strawder?

A. Yes. Q. When was that? ¹⁵⁶ A. February 5, 2001. Q. And what was the nature of that call? A. It was a scream call.

It was a scream session. Q. Who was screaming at who? A. Oh, we were both getting into it. Q. Okay, and as a result of that scream call, what, if anything, did Mr. Strawder say to you?

A. He said he would never buy any of the trash that we produced, implying that the product we had on our floor was our product. That he was never going to buy it. This court finds that RAD repudiated the contract not only because of Mr. Strawder’s statement to Mr. Wilks set forth above, but because of RAD’s failure to provide actual payment or assurances with respect to the 5,000 units. Mr. Strawder wrote three letters to WPIC, including the two to Mr. Bernstein.

Nowhere in these letters did Mr. Strawder state his intent with respect to the 5,000 units. While Mr. Strawder unilaterally offered in his February 5, 2001 letter to make installment payments toward Invoice No. 14415, nowhere in that letter did Mr. Strawder make any promise of payment or other assurance with respect to the 5,000 units. Therefore, this court finds that Mr. Strawder’s statement refusing to purchase the 5,000 units and RAD’s failure to provide payment or adequate assurances regarding those units constituted a repudiation. (c) Substantial impairment of value As to substantial impairment of value, the test is whether “material inconvenience or injustice will result if the aggrieved party is forced to wait and receive an ultimate tender minus the part or aspect repudiated.” Md. Com.

Law Code Ann. § 2-610, Comment 3. RAD’s position throughout the trial has been that it categorically denies any liability on the contract dated February 22, 2000. In his February 20, 2001 letter to Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Strawder stated that “[w]e believe that we do not owe ‘Wilks’ any money yet.” However, at that time WPIC had already ¹⁵⁷ completed the production of all 5,000 units based upon Mr. Strawder’s approved sample.