Also known as: revokes acceptance · revoked acceptance · revoking acceptance · revocation of acceptance
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A buyer's remedy that permits revocation of an earlier acceptance of nonconforming goods when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer. Revocation is available if the buyer accepted on the reasonable assumption that the seller would seasonably cure the nonconformity or if the buyer accepted without discovering the nonconformity because of its difficulty of discovery or the seller's assurances. The buyer must notify the seller within a reasonable time after discovering the ground for revocation and before any substantial change in the goods not caused by their own defects.
Riley Rivera ordered specialized mining equipment from Rocky Mountain Mining. Upon delivery Riley discovered missing components but accepted after the seller promised prompt replacement parts. When the parts never arrived Riley notified Rocky Mountain Mining of revocation and returned the equipment. Because the revocation was justifiable Riley recovered the price paid plus incidental damages under the applicable rule.
Renee Rogers purchased commercial ovens from Radiance Media that heated unevenly. Renee accepted only after the seller promised a software update within two weeks. When the update never arrived Renee justifiably revoked acceptance and covered by purchasing substitute ovens. The revocation entitled Renee to recover the price paid plus cover damages.
Rina Rahman bought a fleet of GPS units from Ridgeway Partners that lacked promised real-time features. Rina accepted on the seller's assurance of upgrades that never came. After justifiable revocation Rina retained the units and resold them to recoup payments made plus inspection and storage expenses under the security-interest rule.
Ralph Richardson accepted delivery of designer jackets in State A that had inferior linings. After customer returns revealed the defect Ralph justifiably revoked acceptance. Damages were measured using market price at the place of arrival rather than the place of tender because revocation occurred after the goods had arrived.
Roberto Reyes contracted to buy corn seed from Redwood Bank that the seller repudiated before delivery. Roberto accepted substitute seed that proved nonconforming and later revoked acceptance. The revocation allowed Roberto to pursue damages measured from the time he learned of the breach rather than the original contract date.
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.
A buyer who accepts goods with knowledge of a nonconformity may still revoke if the acceptance rested on the reasonable assumption that the seller would seasonably cure and that cure does not occur. The buyer must also show substantial impairment and give timely notice before any substantial change in the goods not caused by their own defects.
Supporting sources
…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…
…language or circumstances ... an order or other offer to buy goods for prompt or current shipment shall be construed as inviting acceptance
The buyer must show that the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods, that acceptance occurred without discovery of the nonconformity, and that the acceptance was reasonably induced by the seller's assurances or the difficulty of discovering the defect before acceptance. Timely notice to the seller is also required.
Supporting sources
Yes. Upon effective revocation the buyer obtains the same rights and duties with respect to the goods as if they had been rejected initially, including the right to recover payments made and to pursue damages or cover.
Supporting sources
Continued use after the promised cure period expires and after the seller stops responding indicates that any assumption of seasonable cure has become unreasonable, making revocation unavailable. Use during the period when cure was reasonably expected does not waive the right.
Supporting sources