(1) The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.
(2) Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and if made with knowledge of a nonconformity cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be seasonably cured, but acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this article for nonconformity.
(3) Where a tender has been accepted:
(a) The buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy; and
(b) If the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection (3) of Section 7-2-312) and the buyer is sued as a result of such a breach, he must so notify the seller within a reasonable time after he receives notice of the litigation or be barred from any remedy over for liability established by the litigation.
(4) The burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect to the goods accepted.
(5) Where the buyer is sued for breach of a warranty or other obligation for which his seller is answerable over:
(a) He may give his seller written notice of the litigation. If the notice states that the seller may come in and defend and that if the seller does not do so he will be bound in any action against him by his buyer by any determination of fact common to the two litigations, then unless the seller after seasonable receipt of the notice does come in and defend he is so bound.
(b) If the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection (3) of Section 7-2-312) the original seller may demand in writing that his buyer turn over to him control of the litigation including settlement or else be barred from any remedy over and if he also agrees to bear all expense and to satisfy any adverse judgment, then unless the buyer after seasonable receipt of the demand does turn over control, the buyer is so barred.
(6) The provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) apply to any obligation of a buyer to hold the seller harmless against infringement or the like (subsection (3) of Section 7-2-312).
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811.)
Notes of Decisions
Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC, 287 F. Supp. 3d 840 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“No case-law is cited by either side regarding the sufficiency of class-wide notice under the laws of the states in question.”
Garcia v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
“Chrysler argues that Key’s, Daniel-son’s, and Franklin’s express warranty claims should be dismissed because they did not give Chrysler pre-suit notice of their claims, as is required under Alabama and Georgia law. The Court agrees.”
Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Boyd, 475 So. 2d 835 (Ala. 1985).
· cites it 2× “American Honda argues that it is not liable to Boyd because it was not notified of the defects, and was not given an opportunity to cure them, both of which it says are required by Code 1975, §§ 7-2-607 and -608. As to American Honda's first contention, it is undisputed that…”
Snell v. G.D. Searle & Co., 595 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Ala. 1984).
· cites it 9× “Ala. Code § 7-2-607 (3)(a) (1975) provides: The buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.”
Hobbs v. Gen. Motors Corp., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (M.D. Ala. 2001).
“Code § 7-2-607(3)(a). 3 . The court also notes, although it does not decide the issue of sufficiency of notice since no notice recognized by Alabama law was given, that it was not until this court began addressing the motions filed in this case that it even became apparent that…”
Alabama Classic Homes, Inc. v. Wickes Lumber Co., 836 So. 2d 885 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Code 1975, § 7-2-607(1). Based on our review of the record in the present case, we do not find substantial evidence indicating that Aabama Classic Homes either rejected or revoked acceptance of the goods in question.”
Johnson v. Am. Mut. Liab. Ins., 368 So. 2d 506 (Ala. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Does Code of Ala.1975, § 7-2-607, require all persons seeking recovery under Code of Ala.”
Morris v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (M.D. Ala. 2024).
· cites it 3× “See Ala. Code § 7-2-607 (3)(a) (“Where a tender has been accepted: (a) [t]he buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach[,] notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy[.”
Gunter v. Boston Sci. Corp. (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).
“16 Boston Scientific further maintains that the express warranty claim fails because Plaintiffs did not give the mandatory pre-suit notice required by Ala. Code §7-2-607 (3)(1). As this is a personal injury claim, no mandatory notice is required.”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-607(1) — 2 cases
Alabama Classic Homes, Inc. v. Wickes Lumber Co., 836 So. 2d 885 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
“Code 1975, § 7-2-607(1). Based on our review of the record in the present case, we do not find substantial evidence indicating that Aabama Classic Homes either rejected or revoked acceptance of the goods in question.”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-607(2) — 1 case
Alabama Classic Homes, Inc. v. Wickes Lumber Co., 836 So. 2d 885 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
“Code 1975, § 7-2-607(1). Based on our review of the record in the present case, we do not find substantial evidence indicating that Aabama Classic Homes either rejected or revoked acceptance of the goods in question.”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-607(3)(a) — 6 cases
Garcia v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
“Chrysler argues that Key’s, Daniel-son’s, and Franklin’s express warranty claims should be dismissed because they did not give Chrysler pre-suit notice of their claims, as is required under Alabama and Georgia law. The Court agrees.”
Snell v. G.D. Searle & Co., 595 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Ala. 1984).
“Ala. Code § 7-2-607 (3)(a) (1975) provides: The buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.”
Hobbs v. Gen. Motors Corp., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (M.D. Ala. 2001).
“Code § 7-2-607(3)(a). 3 . The court also notes, although it does not decide the issue of sufficiency of notice since no notice recognized by Alabama law was given, that it was not until this court began addressing the motions filed in this case that it even became apparent that…”
Alabama Classic Homes, Inc. v. Wickes Lumber Co., 836 So. 2d 885 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
“Code 1975, § 7-2-607(1). Based on our review of the record in the present case, we do not find substantial evidence indicating that Aabama Classic Homes either rejected or revoked acceptance of the goods in question.”
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.