Hеre we have a suit for breach of contract by Economy Folding Box Corp. (Economy) against Anchor Frozen Foods Corp. (Anchor). Economy and Anchor entered into a contract wherein Eсonomy agreed to provide Anchor with boxes in which Anchor could ship frozen seafood. Economy delivered the first shipment of boxes and Anchor filled them with its product and shipped them off to its distributors. Anchor soon received word from its distributors that the boxes were falling apart. After Anchor refused to pay for the boxes or accept any further deliveries, Economy sued for breach of contract. Following a two-day bench trial, the district court found that Anchor properly revoked its acceptance of the first shipment and that it had a right to cancel the contract. The cоurt entered judgment in Anchor’s favor. We affirm.
I. Background
Prior to the transaction at issue, Anchor regularly ordered boxes from Economy. 1 Early in 2004, Anchor asked Economy to design a new packaging system that would consist оf six inner boxes of frozen seafood contained in a single outer box. Anchor planned to sell these “six-packs” to distributors for resale to customers. The outer box was to be the shipping cartоn and needed to be sturdy enough to withstand being stacked on pallets and shipped on freezer trucks to distributors. Ken Green, Economy’s sales representative, assured Anchor that the outer box Ecоnomy designed would be freezer-worthy and would withstand being palletized. When samples of the inner and outer boxes were ready, Economy sent them to Anchor. Anchor’s president, Roy Tucillo, tested the boxеs by filling them with frozen seafood and freezing them for a week. Anchor approved the samples and ordered 180,000 inner cartons and 30,000 outer cartons from Economy. That order could be increased or decreased up to 20% based on overrun or underrun of boxes by Economy. In the spring of 2004, Economy sent Anchor a shipment of 6,300 outer boxes and 36,800 inner boxes. Anchor accepted those boxes and Economy issued an invoice for 204,000 inner boxes and 34,000 outer boxes on or about April 14, 2004. Approximately two weeks later, Economy issued an invoice for the remainder of the boxes.
After recеiving the first delivery of boxes, Anchor sent shipments of frozen food in the new boxes to two of its distributors, Colorado Choice Distributors (Colorado Choice) and American Gold Label (American Gold). Approximаtely two and a half weeks later, Anchor began receiving complaints from Jay Raulerson at Colorado Choice that the outer boxes were splitting open and collapsing at some оf Colorado Choice’s cold storage facilities. Raulerson told Anchor not to send any more shipments in those boxes. Tucillo asked Rau-lerson to put his complaints in writing. On May 28, 2004, Economy asked Anchor *720 to pay the two outstanding invoices for the boxes, and that same day, Anchor sent Economy a written rejection of the boxes. Tucillo subsequently received a written complaint from Raulerson dеscribing the problem with the boxes and a facsimile from American Gold conveying a similar complaint. Anchor forwarded these complaints to Economy. Throughout June, the parties had conversations and exchanged letters about the allegedly defective boxes. However, they were unable to resolve the problem. On July 7, 2004, Economy filed suit against Anchor for breach of contract and account stated. In its answer, Anchor asserted that the boxes were not merchantable or fit for their intended purpose and violated these implied warranties.
The district court analyzed Economy’s claims under the Illinois version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and found that, although Anchor accepted the boxes, it properly revoked its acceptance under 810 ILCS 5/2-608 after learning оf the boxes’ defects. The court also concluded that Anchor had proven its defense of breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under 810 ILCS 5/2-315 and entered judgment in Anсhor’s favor. Economy appeals the district court’s decision, arguing that it erred in failing to analyze the contract under 810 ILCS 5/2-612, which applies to installment contracts.
II. Discussion
We review a district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact and application of law to fact for clear error.
Keach v. U.S. Trust Co.,
Economy argues that the district court erred in analyzing the contract as a single delivery contract rather than as an installment contract under 810 ILCS 5/2-612. Unfortunately for Economy, it did not raise this argument before the district court and, as we have long held, “[i]t is axiomatic that an issue not first presented to the district court may not be raised before the appellate court as a ground for reversal.”
Christmas v. Sanders,
Economy attempts to circumvent our well-establishеd waiver rule by arguing that it relied on the UCC in the district court proceedings, and thus it implicitly reserved its installment contract argument. This argument is a nonstarter. A plaintiff cannot rely on the entire UCC and leave it to the court to deter
*721
mine what code sections apply to her claim. It is not the court’s responsibility to research the law and construct the parties’ arguments for them.
See APS Sports Collectibles, Inc. v. Sports Time, Inc.,
Having determined that Economy did not raise its installment contract argument before the district court, we note that the rule against cоnsidering new arguments on appeal is subject to certain limited exceptions, such as “where jurisdictional questions are presented or where, in exceptional cases, justice demands mоre flexibility.”
Stern v. United States Gypsum, Inc.,
Economy also argues that it had a right to cure any defects before Anchor could lawfully reject the first installment of boxes or cancel the contract. In the decision below, the district court did not make a finding whether the defect in the outer box was curable or whether Economy had an opportunity to cure. The court applied 810 ILCS 5/2-608, which provides that a buyer can revoke acceptance of a delivery of non-conforming goods if he “accepted it (a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or (b) without discovery of such nonconformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller’s assurances.” A small number of courts have found thаt a seller who accepts goods without knowing they are non-conforming and later discovers the defect must give the seller a chance to cure before revoking acceptance. See 18 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts, § 52:25 (4th ed.2004). However, most courts “have concluded that the seller’s right to cure does not apply to situations in which the buyer revokes acceptance basеd on a subsequently discovered defect.” Id. (citation omitted). Noting that there is no dispositive Illinois case on the issue, the district court found that since 810 ILCS 5/2-608 does not expressly provide a seller a right to cure prior to a buyer’s revocation of acceptance, Economy had no right to cure under that section. Economy does not challenge the district court’s conclusion. Indeed, аt oral argument, counsel for Economy conceded that the district court’s analysis was correct and asserted that the court’s only error was in not applying 810 ILCS 5/2-612, which does provide a seller with a right to cure before a buyer can reject an install *722 ment. Because Economy did not argue before the district court that it had a right to cure under 810 ILCS 5/2-612, and because it does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that there is no right to cure under 810 ILCS 5/2-608, Economy has waived its cure argument as well.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we Affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of Anchor.
Notes
. As neither party disputes the trial court’s findings of fact, we rely on them in recounting the events giving rise to this appeal.