title to the specific modules returned to the Debt- or. Therefore, the Court concludes that title to the modules revested in the Debtor when they were returned by Google pre-petition. As a result, the Court concludes that there is no basis for a conversion or administrative claim by Google. Google contends, nonetheless, that title could not have revested in the Debtor because Google had no right to reject the modules under the UCC. In many instances Google installed the modules into its servers and they did not fail for some time. Google consequently argues that it was precluded from rejecting the modules under the UCC because installation is an “act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership.” See, e.g., John C. Kohler v. United States, 204 Ct.Cl. 777, 498 F.2d 1360, 1367 (1974) (<HOLDING>); United States for Use of Fram Corp. v.
holding that although sellers acknowledgment was not valid acceptance of buyers offer under  22071 buyers subsequent acceptance of and payment for goods along with buyers objection to a particular term within counteroffer constituted assent to remaining terms of counteroffer holding that buyers retention and use of boiler was an act inconsistent with sellers ownership and constituted acceptance precluding rejection holding that the rejection of an offer has the effect of terminating it and it cannot be revived by later acceptance holding that complete performance of contract constituted acceptance holding that use of traffic signal equipment was inconsistent with sellers ownership and constituted acceptance