Also known as: revocations of acceptance · revoke acceptance · revokes acceptance · revoked acceptance · revoking acceptance · UCC 2-608
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A buyer's remedy allowing revocation of an earlier acceptance of goods whose nonconformity substantially impairs their value to the buyer. The buyer must have accepted on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be cured or because of difficulty of discovery or seller assurances. Revocation must occur within a reasonable time after discovery and before any substantial change in the goods not caused by the defect itself, and notice must be given to the seller.
Ravi Reddy ordered custom machinery from Regal Apparel and accepted the shipment after assurances of prompt fixes for calibration issues. When the fixes never arrived, Ravi attempted revocation but the court found it wrongful. Regal Apparel could not resell the identified goods at a reasonable price and sued for the price, but the court awarded only damages for non-acceptance instead.
Renee Rogers bought commercial ovens from Riverside Healthcare that failed to heat evenly. She had accepted after promises of a software update that never came. Renee revoked acceptance, canceled the contract, and recovered the price paid plus cover damages for substitute ovens.
Ronald Reed purchased GPS units from Raven Logistics that lacked promised real-time features. After revocation of acceptance, Ronald retained the units in his possession and resold several to recover payments made and inspection costs under his security interest.
Rosalind Reed accepted a shipment of designer coats from Redwood Bank that contained latent zipper defects. After revoking acceptance upon customer returns, she recovered damages measured by the market price at the place of arrival rather than the original tender location.
Ryan Roberts contracted to buy corn from a supplier who repudiated before delivery. Ryan waited a commercially reasonable time for performance, then covered with substitute goods and pursued damages when the supplier failed to deliver conforming seed.
Richard Oloffson, doing business as Rich's Ag Service, entered into an agreement with Clarence Coomer on April 16, 1970, under which Coomer would sell and deliver 40,000 bushels of corn to Oloffson in October and December 1970. Oloffson described the deal as two separate contracts of 20,000 bushels each, priced at $1.12 3/4 per bushel for delivery by October 30 and $1.12 1/4 per bushel for delivery by December 15. Coomer confirmed the total quantity but stated he would deliver as much as possible by October 30 with the remainder by December 15. On June 3, 1970, Coomer notified Oloffson that he would not plant corn that season because of excessive wetness and instructed Oloffson to secure the corn from another source if Oloffson had commitments to third parties. The market price for corn for future delivery stood at $1.16 per bushel on that date. When Oloffson contacted Coomer again in September 1970 regarding the corn, Coomer repeated that delivery would not occur. Oloffson mailed confirmations of the April agreement to Coomer and had his attorney demand performance, but Coomer did not respond to either communication. Following the passage of both October 30 and December 15 without any deliveries, Oloffson obtained replacement corn by purchasing 20,000 bushels at $1.35 per bushel and 20,000 bushels at $1.49 per bushel. Oloffson brought suit against Coomer in the circuit court of Bureau County. After a trial without a jury, the court entered judgment for Oloffson in the amount of $1,500 plus costs. Oloffson appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District.
The buyer must show that the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer. Acceptance must have occurred on the reasonable assumption of cure that did not happen or because of difficulty of discovery or seller assurances. Revocation must be timely, before substantial change not caused by the defect, and notice must be given.
…concedes that if “rescission” was an inappropriate remedy under the UCC, then the trial court should have permitted him to revoke acceptance under SDCL 57A-2-605. Revocation is a permissible substitute for rescission under the UCC in some jurisdictions. Henderson v. Chrysler Corp. , 191 Mich.App. 337, 477 N.W.2d 505, appeal…
…it: “(1) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; “(B) Revocation of acceptance
…portion of 2-711: "(1) Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (Section 2-612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may…
…used and sold, regardless of nonconformities. : Although Mr. Margaros's statements regarding rejection and or revocation
Continued use after a valid revocation notice is risky and may constitute reacceptance if unreasonable. Courts examine whether the use was commercially reasonable under the circumstances, such as when the buyer must operate a business while awaiting cure or resolution.
The buyer obtains the same rights and duties as if the goods had been rightfully rejected. This includes cancellation, recovery of the price paid, cover damages, or damages for non-delivery, plus a security interest in the goods for payments and expenses.
Market price for damages is determined as of the place of arrival when revocation occurs after the goods have reached the buyer. The buyer may also recover incidental and consequential damages in addition to the contract-market differential or cover damages.