I'm certainly aware of the concept of "implied consent." It's a legal ploy, but it stinks! It has the same aroma of tiny type and the kind of clauses in "pre-printed" contracts which run against the poor schmuck who did not preprint the contract (think about those nasty leases presented by slum landlords to struggling tenants.)
In my opinion, Contract Review is the primary place where those nasty clauses [allowing for implied consent and terrible penalties imposed by imperious customers who want to blame everything on the supplier, regardless if it was really the fault of the customer] should be detected and deleted.
I refused to accept "boiler plate" purchase order restrictions printed in tiny type on the back without going over every single clause and crossing out those I was unwilling to accept. You may think it odd, but almost every prospect agreed to our deletions. Prospects who didn't agree NEVER became customers.
One clause I never agreed to was for a customer to return (at my cost) or refuse goods without my written consent for each case. When customers would balk, I countered with my own clause - "unauthorized return which is later found to be unjustified shall incur a cash penalty of $500 or ten times the value of shipment and two-way shipping costs, whichever is the greater sum."
The best part about such a controversy over clauses is it allows customer and supplier to really discuss the factors which are important to the customer so the supplier can be on guard to meet customer requirements. The customer is put on guard to make sure incoming inspection processes are accurate and when a dispute arises, the parties deal with it as equals, each having an opportunity to determine the actual facts.
Another clause I always added, if not already present, was a "binding arbitration clause" if the parties could not settle the matter between themselves. (Arbitration is almost always faster than trying to go through a civil court system.)
In actual practice, I only had to authorize one return, even though the product met the original specs, because the customer had erred in its design for specifiying a plating finish which would not stand up to its subsequent processing. We determined (after testing samples) the best plating for the parts would be electroless nickel and we agreed to take parts back AT CUSTOMER'S EXPENSE, strip the original plating and replate with electroless nickel, resulting in a net saving of time and money versus scrapping the original parts and starting over. If we had not imposed the clause against unjustified return, we would have been saddled with a $50,000 shipment which met the original specs merely because the customer was experiencing plating failure during production. When the customer took a deep breath BEFORE shipping parts back and possibly incurring a half million dollar penalty, we all had an opportunity to examine the situation and devise a solution which satisfied everyone.
The reality is the customer is NOT "always right."