(1) Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender. It is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller.
(2) Subject to the provisions of Sections 7-2-603 and 7-2-604 on rejected goods:
(a) After rejection any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the seller; and
(b) If the buyer has before rejection taken physical possession of goods in which he does not have a security interest under the provisions of this article (subsection (3) of Section 7-2-711), he is under a duty after rejection to hold them with reasonable care at the seller’s disposition for a time sufficient to permit the seller to remove them; but
(c) The buyer has no further obligations with regard to goods rightfully rejected.
(3) The seller’s rights with respect to goods wrongfully rejected are governed by the provisions of this article on seller’s remedies in general (Section 7-2-703).
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811.)
Notes of Decisions
The Sanderson Grp., Inc. v. Smith, 809 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
“[2] The arbitrator clearly stated in his award that Smith's attempt to reject the manufactured home was ineffective under § 7-2-602(1), Ala. Code 1975. He also found that the attempted rejection, which was communicated to Green Tree, was not communicated, by Smith or by Green…”
Yarbrough v. Williams, 533 So. 2d 565 (Ala. 1988).
“There was sufficient trial testimony that Yarbrough neither rightfully rejected the goods, § 7-2-602, nor revoked his acceptance of them, § 7-2-608.”
Braden v. Stem, 571 So. 2d 1110 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989).
“Code 1975, any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to the goods is wrongful as against the seller, § 7-2-602(2)(a), Ala.Code 1975. We find that the use of the automobile by the buyer, subsequent to his attempted rescission, constituted an acceptance under the…”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-602(1) — 1 case
The Sanderson Grp., Inc. v. Smith, 809 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
“[2] The arbitrator clearly stated in his award that Smith's attempt to reject the manufactured home was ineffective under § 7-2-602(1), Ala. Code 1975. He also found that the attempted rejection, which was communicated to Green Tree, was not communicated, by Smith or by Green…”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-602(2)(a) — 1 case
Braden v. Stem, 571 So. 2d 1110 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989).
“Code 1975, any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to the goods is wrongful as against the seller, § 7-2-602(2)(a), Ala.Code 1975. We find that the use of the automobile by the buyer, subsequent to his attempted rescission, constituted an acceptance under the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.