3. Right to Cure.
FACTS: Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. decided to install afall-protection system for elevated walkways, roof areas, andinterior catwalks in Grand Central Terminal, in New York City. Thesystem was needed to ensure the safety of Metro-North employeeswhen they worked at great heights on the interior and exterior ofthe terminal. Sinco, Inc., proposed a system called “Sayflida,”which involved a harness worn by the worker, a network of cables,and metal clips or sleeves called “Sayflinks” that connected theharness to the cables. Metro-North agreed to pay $197,325 for theinstallation of this system by June 26, 1999. Because the system’sreliability was crucial, the contract required certain qualitycontrol processes. During a training session for Metro-Northemployees on June 29, the Sayflink sleeves fell apart. Within twodays, Sinco manufactured and delivered two different types ofreplacement clips without subjecting them to the contract’s qualitycontrol process, but Metro-North rejected them. Sinco suggestedother possible solutions, which Metro-North did not accept. InSeptember, Metro-North terminated its contract with Sinco andawarded the work to Surety, Inc., at a price of about $348,000.Sinco filed a suit in a federal district court, alleging breach ofcontract. Metro-North counterclaimed for its cost of cover.
ISSUE: In whose favor should the court rule, and why?
RESOLUTION: [Sinco, Inc. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co.,133 F.Supp.2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)] How did the court answer thequestions? What did the court decide?
EXPLANATION-Do you agree with the court? Why or why not? Can youchange any facts to give a different result?
