If a party has been delivered nonconforming goods and has rejected them, if they are forced to cover in order to maintain business operations, they may sue the seller fora. the difference in price plus consequential damagesb. only the difference in pricec. the difference in price and only attorneys

Option A. Difference in price and consequential damages.

Explanation:

Non-conforming goods are goods that fail to meet the contractual obligations. These obligations may arise from the seller's description, statements, promises ...

Tender of delivery by the seller gives the buyer a choice, the buyer can either accept the tendered goods or refuse them. Acceptance makes the buyer liable to pay the purchase price of the goods. Although an action for damages protects the buyer's interest.

If the goods are in any respect non-conforming, the option to refuse the goods can be exercised by rejecting the goods prior to accepting them or by revoking an acceptance already made.

An aggrieved buyer who refuses tendered goods is given different measure of resulting damages which include:

* Sue for breach of warranty.

* Cancel the contract and cover.

* Cancel the contract and Sue for damages.

* Seek specific performance.

The buyer in general has remedies for goods not yet received, she may cancel the contract and recover the price; cover the goods and recover damages for difference in price. For goods delivered and refused, the buyer may cover the goods and recover the price plus consequential damages (special damages that can be proven to have occured due to failure to meet the contractual obligations).

Therefore in this case, if the breach of warranty (delivering non-conforming in place of conforming goods) is proved, the party may sue the seller for differences in the contract price and market price, and also for other consequential damages.

The correct answer is the option A: the difference in price plus consequential damages.

Explanation:

To begin with, depending on the type of contract that both the company and its supplier might have firmed the consequences for such situation will be the ones stated in that contract. However, despite that, the most common reason to sue to the supplier of the goods will be for the difference in the money that the company had to pay for other new goods and for the possible damages that may have occured for the proper loss of those goods and the money used in buying new ones. Therefore that the sue will focus on those two matters and not in the attorneys.