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

(1) Can Helen reject the pick-up at this point in time under §§ 2-601 and 2-602 for the nonconforming
spare tire? Why or why not?
(2) Assume that Helen has, in fact, accepted the pick-up, and her right to reject has been cut off.
May Helen now revoke her acceptance on the ground that the non-conforming spare tire
substantially impairs the value of the pick-up to her?
(3) Assume that you have concluded that the non-conforming spare tire is a substantial
impairment. Which one of the remaining requirements for revocation as set forth in § 2-608(1)(a)
or (b) has been met (if any)?
(4) If Helen cannot revoke her acceptance, are there any other remedies available to her?
13.3.1.1. Note that a buyer may not revoke acceptance based upon defects which
were not known to him at the time of acceptance because of his own failure to
make a reasonable investigation. In Hummel v. Skyline Dodge, Inc., 589 P.2d 73
(Colo. App. 1978), a used car dealer was interested in buying a car for re-sale on
his lot. He was aware that it had been in a previous accident. He kicked the
wheels, opened the hood, and took it for a spin around the block. He then bought
the car. A few weeks later, he took it to a mechanic who told him the frame was
bent and there was a crack in the engine mount. The court would not allow him to
revoke acceptance, noting that he “had an unlimited opportunity to inspect the car
prior to agreeing to purchase it.”
13.3.1.2. Note also that if a purchaser knowingly buys something with a defect,
the purchaser cannot subsequently revoke acceptance based upon that defect,
unless the purchaser had reason to believe that the defect would be cured.
13.3.1.3. See Lee R. Russ, Annotation, What Constitutes "substantial impairment"
Entitling Buyer to Revoke his Acceptance of Goods Under UCC § 2-608(1), 38
A.L.R. 5 th 191 (1996).
13.3.2. Under UCC § 2-608(2), revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable
time after the buyer discovers (or should have discovered) the defect and before any
substantial change in the condition of the goods not attributable to the defect.
13.3.2.1. Comment 4 indicates that attempts to repair should be taken into account
in determining what constitutes a “reasonable time” within which to revoke. For
example, if a car dealer repeatedly attempts to repair a car, and fails to do so, the
period of repair will extend the time within which a buyer may reasonably revoke.
See, for example, McCullough v. Bill Swad Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 449 N.E.2d
1289 (Oh. 1983), where revocation nine months after acceptance was timely,
because of the seller’s repeated (but failed) attempts at repair during that period.
190