Reference no: EM131473705

Question: On November 9, 1997, Angel, a Spanish-speaking salesperson working for Credit Express Furniture, made a sales presentation at the home of the Spanish-speaking plaintiffs, Rigoberto and Pilar Filpo. The presentation was in Spanish as the Filpos spoke little or no English. Angel showed Pilar a catalog, from which she ordered six pieces of furniture for a total of $3,676. The contract signed by Rigoberto was in English and contained a provision stating that if the buyers cancelled their order or refused delivery, the buyers could pay 20 percent of the contract price as liquidated damages. The contract also stated that the merchandise could be exchanged only up to 30 days after delivery. Under New York State's Door-to-Door Sales Protection Act, door-to-door sales contracts must contain, in the same language as the presentation and in 10-point type, the following notice: You, the buyer may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight of the third business day after the date of this transaction see the attached notice of cancellation form for an explanation of this right The Act also requires door-to-door sales contracts to have attached to them "a completed form in duplicate, captioned ‘NOTICE OF CANCELLATION,'" also in the language of the oral presentation, informing consumers of their right to:

(1) cancel the contract within three days;

(2) demand a full refund;

(3) receive a refund within three days; and

(4) return the unwanted goods by making them available at the consumer's home.

Rigoberto paid for the furniture in cash when the furniture was delivered the following month. When Pilar arrived home several hours later and inspected the furniture, she found several nonconformities, including loose trim, holes in the fabric, and an incorrect fabric design and color. The next day, Pilar telephoned Credit Express Furniture, reported the damage, canceled the contract, and demanded a full refund. Credit refused to refund the purchase price but offered to exchange the furniture and to give the Filpos $300. Twice, a delivery person from Credit Express Furniture showed up at the Filpos' apartment with a replacement set of furniture and a check for $300, but both times the Filpos refused to accept the new furniture or the check, demanding instead that Credit Express Furniture take back the original set and return their $3,676 purchase price. The Filpos filed suit against Credit Express Furniture. At this point, the Filpos have had the original set of furniture for two and one-half years. Should the court order Credit Express Furniture to accept the return of the furniture and to refund the Filpos' purchase price?