of the content of notification are less stringent in the case of a nonmerchant buyer (emphasis added). What is clear from Comment 5 is that the content of the notice for rejection is not as stringent as that for revocation of acceptance. Mere notice under § 672.607(3)(a) is not sufficient. See White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, Hornbook Series, at § 8-4 on page 421 (West 3rd ed. 1988) (hereinafter “White & Summers”). The notice requirement is a valid precondition prior to imposing liability on the seller. See General Matters, Inc. v. Paramount Canning Co., 382 So.2d 1262, 1263 (Fla.Ct.App.1980). Not every expression of discontent by the buyer always satisfies the notice requirement. See Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 532 F.2d 957, 977 (5th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). The notice must “set forth the nonconformity
holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision holding that buyers letter signed only by buyer was sufficient to satisfy ors 7220102 where defendant seller argued that the letter contained indefinite and inconsistent terms holding that as matter of law cursory letter from buyer to seller did not provide sufficient notice holding that broker who represents seller cannot represent buyer in purchase of property from seller without sellers knowledge and consent