brought this suit alleging that, between 2009 and 2012, Aceco ordered millions of dollars’ worth of goods from Shaoxing but failed to pay in full. Aceco counterclaimed, alleging that many of the goods that Shaoxing delivered were defective. fails to make an effective rejection” after “a reasonable opportunity to inspect [the goods].” N.Y.U.C.C. § 2-606(l)(b). In order for a rejection to be effective, the buyer must “seasonably notif[y] the seller” that the goods do not conform to the contract. N.Y.U.C.C. § 2-602(1). “When the buyer fails to pay the price as it becomes due the seller may recover, together with any incidental damages under the next section, the price ... of goods accepted.... ” Id. § 2-709(1); Hyosung Am., Inc. v. Sumagh Textile Co., 137 F.3d 75, 80 (2d Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). Aceco’s principal claim on appeal is that the
holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach holding buyer liable for balance of contract price of accepted goods holding that seller was entitled to recover contract price of goods where buyer failed to make effective rejection under the ucc holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to  672606 holding that title revested in seller under california law when buyer revoked his acceptance of goods