Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
Colonial Dodge, Inc. (plaintiff) sued Miller (defendant) for the purchase price of a car.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Under Section 2-608 of the UCC, a buyer may revoke their acceptance of goods if they discover a substantial non-conformity in the goods and revokes their acceptance within a reasonable time.
The purpose of the requirement of substantial impairment of value is to preclude revocation for trivial defects or defects which may be easily corrected.
View Full Point of Law
The defendant purchased a car from the plaintiff, and the car included a heavy-duty trailer package with extra wide tires along with a spare tire. Later, the defendant discovered that the spare tire was not in the car and called the plaintiff to inquire into its whereabouts. The plaintiff informed him that they did not have the spare tire available and the defendant subsequently stoped payment on the check paid for the car and was going to leave the car in front of his house for the plaintiff to come and get. The defendant sued for the purchase price arguing that failure to include the spare tire was not a substantial defect that entitled the defendant to revoke his acceptance of the goods.
Issue.
Whether under Section 2-608 of the UCC, a buyer may revoke their acceptance of goods if they discover a substantial non-conformity in the goods and revokes their acceptance within a reasonable time.
Held.
Yes. Under Section 2-608 of the UCC, a buyer may revoke their acceptance of goods if they discover a substantial non-conformity in the goods and revokes their acceptance within a reasonable time.
Dissent.
Here, the defect is not substantial as 2-608 requires.
Discussion.
The question is not whether an ordinary buyer would think that a defect in non-conforming goods was substantial, but it is does the non-conformity lower the value of the goods in the eyes of the buyer. The defendant bought the car because it included a spare tire, which was necessary and important for the defendant due to the long distances he would be traveling in the car. Thus, the defect substantially impairs the goods and the revocation of acceptance is valid because it was done within a reasonable time.