My question involves business law in the state of: California
I hope the is not too convoluted and thank you in advance:
Custom chaise sofa (>$5000) was made for designer/buyer, but it didn't conform to specs. Furniture manufacturer/seller attempted to cure the substantial defect by offering to fix at full retail price, but buyer did not accept because quoted price was too high (note: seller offered full retail to fix because seller didn't want to reveal buyer's markup in front of buyer's customer who was standing in the room.) Seller made no other offer to cure and buyer took delivery of sofa. Buyer then re-upholstered sofa for his customer and claims to have issued a refund to customer. Buyer now asking seller for half of alleged refund to his customer (which included his profit) and threatens escalation if seller does not comply.
1) If seller's original quote to cure defect (retail price) was not the price the seller was actually going to charge the buyer (see note above), and this fact was communicated to the buyer, did the buyer accept the good "as is"?
2) If seller was not given an opportunity to amend her offer to cure, and buyer proceeded to re-upholster the piece without informing the seller, does this constitute an improper rejection of the good?
3) If seller is liable and dispute escalates, is buyer entitled to full amount of alleged refund plus "10 hours of [his] time to deal with the situation"?