Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): district court held, following a bench trial, that Aceco was liable to Shaoxing for approximately $3.4 million for unpaid invoices, and that Aceco had failed to prove its counterclaims. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Beck Chevrolet Co. v. Gen. Motors LLC, 787 F.3d 663, 672 (2d Cir. 2015). Because this case involves a contract for the sale of goods, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by the State of New York (“NYUCC”) governs. See Integrated Circuits Unlimited v. E.F. Johnson Co., 875 F.2d 1040, 1041 (2d Cir. 1989). Under the NYUCC, “[t]he buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.” N.Y.U.C.C. § 2-607(1); see also Sobiech v. Int’l Staple & Mach. Co., 867 F.2d 778, 781 (2d Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>). “Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to  672606 (B) holding that seller was entitled to recover contract price of goods where buyer failed to make effective rejection under the ucc (C) holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract (D) holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach (E) holding buyer liable for balance of contract price of accepted goods
Output (English): holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract