After trial, plaintiff was awarded the purchase price of the roller, but was denied recovery for consequential damages. Defendant then moved to alter or amend the judgment to provide defendant a setoff of the reasonable rental value of the roller. Defendant also moved to amend its answer to assert setoff as an affirmative defense. Both motions were denied. On appeal, defendant contends that it was not afforded an opportunity to cure the roller's defects, that plaintiff failed to prove a non-conformity sufficient to create a right of revocation of acceptance, and that any such right to revoke was waived when plaintiff continued to use the roller.
Defendant also challenges the trial court's ruling regarding the right to setoff.
Plaintiff cross-appeals the denial of consequential damages. On review, this Court will not disturb the trial court's findings of fact or conclusions of law unless the party challenging them demonstrates they are clearly erroneous. Findings of fact will stand if supported by any reasonable and credible evidence, even if contrary evidence exists. I. A. Defendant first argues that plaintiff should be barred from any recovery for revoking acceptance without first giving defendant an opportunity to cure defects in the roller. As a general rule, once a buyer accepts tender the buyer must, within a reasonable time after discovery of a breach, notify the seller of the breach or be barred from any remedy.