Facts:

The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent for the supply of certain items including 3000 plastic fingers. The unit cost of the plastic fingers was N478.00 (Four Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira) while the total value of the contract was N1,434,000.00. (One Million, Four Hundred and Thirty Four Thousand Naira). At the negotiation stage, the parties agreed all the terms including the sample and description of the plastic fingers to be supplied by the appellant. Payment was to be made by the respondent after the appellant would have supplied the goods.
On the day the appellant supplied the plastic fingers, they were received by the staff of the respondent who after counting them informed the appellant that there was a shortfall of two hundred pieces. After one week, the appellant supplied the remaining two hundred pieces which were accepted by the respondent. Two weeks after supply was made, the appellant went to the office of the respondent to receive payment for the goods. It was at this point that the appellant was informed that the respondent had rejected the plastic fingers on the ground that they did not meet specification as agreed and that the respondent should come and pick them up. This development was only communicated to the appellant after two weeks of keeping possession of the goods without communicating the rejection to the appellant.
After repeated demands to no avail, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent at the High Court of Lagos State asking for payment for the supplied goods and accumulated interest. After hearing the parties, the court dismissed the suit of the appellant and held that the respondent was right in repudiating the contract and not paying for the goods supplied because they did not meet the specification agreed by the parties. The appellant was aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The appellant asked the court to overrule the trial court.
One of the issues for determination is whether the trial court was right to have dismissed the claims of the appellant