the defective motor. See Tucker v. Aqua Yacht Harbor Corp., 749 F.Supp. 142 (N.D.Miss.1990) (applying Mississippi law) (finding that in a case which was instituted while repairs were being made to piston defect on boat motor, manufacturer should have been allowed to cure and thus could not be held liable for breaches of express and implied warranties). ¶ 15. Also, this case is readily distinguishable from our prior opinions in which we found that the right to cure was not unlimited in the wake of repeated deficiencies and repeated attempts at repair. Guerdon Indus., Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So.2d 1202 (Miss.1988) (finding right to cure not unlimited in case where seller made ten attempts to repair a mobile home’s defects in a five-month period); Rester v. Morrow, 491 So.2d 204 (Miss.1988) (<HOLDING>). II. WHETHER MERCURY MARINE’S “REPAIR OR
holding employer justified in relying upon plaintiffs physician holding that buyers retention and use of boiler was an act inconsistent with sellers ownership and constituted acceptance precluding rejection holding that performance may be valid acceptance holding likewise in a ease where plaintiffs renault automobile experienced problems with its electrical system air conditioner and oil indicator gauge justified buyers revocation of acceptance 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