06.09.2021 Views

Sales and Leases - A Problem-based Approach, 2016a

Sales and Leases - A Problem-based Approach, 2016a

Sales and Leases - A Problem-based Approach, 2016a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

13.2.4. After acceptance, the burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect<br />

to the goods accepted.<br />

13.3. Revocation of Acceptance. At this point, you are well aware that if a buyer accepts goods,<br />

the buyer may no longer reject the goods for any non-conformity. After acceptance, is the buyer<br />

stuck with a product that turns out to be defective? That is, although the buyer still has the right<br />

to other remedies, can the buyer rescind the contract <strong>and</strong> be excused from paying the purchase<br />

price for the goods? Section 2-608 provides limited circumstances where a buyer may revoke<br />

acceptance, return the goods, <strong>and</strong> be relieved from his obligation to pay. Turn to UCC § 2-608.<br />

13.3.1. In order to revoke acceptance, the non-conformity must substantially impair the<br />

value of the good to the buyer “to him”<br />

AND EITHER<br />

OR<br />

a. The buyer accepted aware of the non-conformity, but reasonably assuming that<br />

it would be cured (<strong>and</strong> it hasn’t been seasonably cured);<br />

b. The buyer had not discovered the non-conformity at the time of acceptance,<br />

either because (i) the non-conformity was difficult to discover, or (ii) her<br />

acceptance was reasonably induced by seller’s assurances (which, for example,<br />

may have caused her not to inspect).<br />

Many of the cases explore whether the language “to him” creates a subjective test of nonconformity,<br />

which might allow the buyer to claim that a trivial defect was important to<br />

the particular buyer. For example, in Harper v. Mitchell, 1985 WL 4040 (Tenn. App.), the<br />

court stated: “While it is true that [§ 2-608] creates a subjective test in the sense that the<br />

requirements of a particular buyer must be examined <strong>and</strong> deferred to, the evidence with<br />

regard to the substantial impairment to a particular buyer must be measured in objective<br />

terms…. Thus, the ‘substantial impairment’ requirement should be construed to exclude<br />

attempted revocations <strong>based</strong> upon trivial defects or defects that can be easily repaired.”<br />

<strong>Problem</strong> 13-3. Helen, a rancher, enters into an agreement for the purchase of a new pick-up. The<br />

contract specifically provides that the pick-up will come with a full-sized spare tire, because<br />

Helen lives 30 miles out of town on a gravel road, <strong>and</strong> she doesn’t trust that a puny spare tire<br />

would hold up on such roads. When the pick-up arrives, Helen forgets to check on the spare tire.<br />

A month later, while crawling under the pick-up to get a puppy that has scrambled under it, she<br />

looks up <strong>and</strong> notices that the spare tire (attached to the undercarriage) is one of those puny things.<br />

189

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!