The appellant filed a claim against the appellee on an account and the appellee filed a counterclaim. The trial judge, hearing the case without the intervention of a jury, found for the appellee on its counterclaim in the amount of $1,000 which was the amount of its down payment on the purchase price. The appellant filed an appeal to this court and the case is here for review. Held:
There was evidence that the appellee purchased a system, consisting of several components, which was supposed to expedite order-taking and food preparation in a fast-food franchise operation.
The evidence, while in conflict, would support a finding that: the system would not function to meet the special purpose of the appellee; the appellant had stated that the system would be suitable for these purposes; the appellee notified the appellant within a reasonable time after the acceptance that the system was not performing properly; the appellee attempted to negotiate a settlement with the appellant; after negotiations failed, the appellee asserted a revocation of the acceptance. Under these circumstances, the evidence supported the verdict. Code Ann. § 109A-2— 607 (3 a) (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 215); Code Ann. § 109A-2 — 608 (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 216); Code Ann. § 109A-2 — 711 (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 228); Duesenberg-King, Sales & Bulk Transfers under UCC, Vol. 3, § 14.02 [2] [i], p. 14-20. See in this connection, Trailmobile Div. of Pullman, Inc. v. Jones, 118 Ga. App. 472, 474 (164 SE2d 346); Warren’s Kiddie Shoppe v. Casual Slacks, Inc., 120 Ga. App. 578, 581 (171 SE2d 643).
Judgment affirmed.
Jordan, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.
*642Argued January 7, 1971
Decided April 9, 1971.
Dunaway, Shelfer, Haas & Newberry, Bruce B. Weddell, for appellant.
Fine & Block, Craig R. Goodman, for appellees.