In a delivery contract with F.O.B. terms to a store and an industry practice allowing a 30-day delivery leeway, which fact gives the manufacturer its strongest breach defense?

• A. There is evidence of a trade usage in the refrigeration appliance industry allowing a 30-day leeway for appliance deliveries.
• B. A strike by the shipping company excuses performance.
• C. The contract price is substantially lower than market value.
• D. The store suffered no material harm from the delay.

Answer: (A)

The key concept is that industry trade usage can modify contract obligations. Under the UCC, evidence of trade usage and course of dealing fills gaps and can adjust timing requirements for delivery. Here, the refrigeration appliance industry recognizes a 30-day delivery leeway, and that practice becomes part of how delivery timing is understood between buyers and sellers under FOB terms.

Because there’s a recognized 30-day leeway, the manufacturer can rely on that trade usage as a defense to a claim of breach. If delivery occurs within the 30-day window, it aligns with accepted industry timing, so there’s no breach even though a strict calendar date might have been set in the contract.

The other factors aren’t as strong. A strike by the shipping company could excuse performance only if it meets a force‑majeure or impracticability standard, which is less reliably established than a pervasive industry practice. A contract price being lower than market value doesn’t excuse nonperformance, it merely affects damages. And the store’s lack of material harm doesn’t extinguish a breach; breach can exist even without measurable harm.