How did the Supreme Court of Nebraska interpret Section 2-6073 .(a) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in the Fitl v. Strek lawsuit?

What will be an ideal response?

The trial court had found that Fitl had notified Strek within a reasonable time after discovery of the breach. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court's finding as to the reasonableness of the notice was clearly erroneous. Section 2-6073 .(a) states, "Where a tender has been accepted the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy." [Under UCC1-2042.] "[w]hat is a reasonable time for taking any action depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of such action." The notice requirement set forth in Section 2-6073 . (a) serves three purposes. The most important one is to enable the seller to make efforts to cure the breach by making adjustments or replacements in order to minimize the buyer's damages and the seller's liability. A second policy is to provide the seller a reasonable opportunity to learn the facts so that he may adequately prepare for negotiation and defend himself in a suit. A third policy is the same as the policy behind statutes of limitation: to provide a seller with a terminal point in time for liability. The Supreme Court found that Fitl was justified in relying upon Strek's claim that the card was unaltered as a positive statement of fact. The Supreme Court also found that had Strek been informed earlier, he would not have been able to "cure" or help him prepare for negotiation or defend himself in a suit. It concluded that the policies behind the notice requirement in Section 2-6073 .(a) of the UCC were not unfairly prejudiced by the lack of an earlier notice to Strek.