Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 47
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607 (2026)

Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.

B. Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and if made with knowledge of a non-conformity cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the non-conformity would be seasonably cured but acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this chapter for non-conformity.

C. Where a tender has been accepted:

1. 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

2. If the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection C of section 47-2312) 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.

D. The burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect to the goods accepted.

E. Where the buyer is sued for breach of a warranty or other obligation for which his seller is answerable over:

1. 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.

2. If the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection C of section 47-2312) 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.

F. The provisions of subsections C, D and E of this section apply to any obligation of a buyer to hold the seller harmless against infringement or the like (subsection C of section 47-2312).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1984–2020 · leading case: N. Arizona Gas Serv., Inc. v. Petrolane Transp., Inc., 702 P.2d 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
N. Arizona Gas Serv., Inc. v. Petrolane Transp., Inc., 702 P.2d 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “We do not have to decide whether this constitutes a rejection because even if we apply the subsection suggested by Petrolane the trial judge’s formula for damages must be affirmed. A.R.S. § 47-2714 (UCC § 2-714) deals with circumstances in which the buyer has accepted…”
Schechner v. Whirlpool Corp., 237 F. Supp. 3d 601 (E.D. Mich. 2017). “607 (3)(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607 (C)(1); idaho Code §28-2-607(3)(a); N.”
Hearn v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 279 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (D. Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 47-2607(0(1) (emphasis added). In the present case, the Defendants’ breach of implied warranty claim became, or should have become, apparent to Plaintiffs once Winona was diagnosed with cancer in April of 2000 (Complaint at ¶ 23).”
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Vinyltech Corp., 711 F. Supp. 1513 (D. Ariz. 1989). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 47-2607(B). Where a tender has been accepted, “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.”
Pac. Am. Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Bldg. Sys., Inc., 730 P.2d 273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Assuming arguendo that these sections should be applied to a financing lease and assuming that the computer was nonconforming and that the nonconformity substantially impaired the value of the computer to Building Systems, it could have revoked its acceptance only if (1) it…”
McKesson Chem. Co. v. Van Waters & Rogers, 739 P.2d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 44-2370(E)(1) (now A.R.S. § 47-2607(E)(1)), which provides: E.”
Mountain-Aire Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 703 P.2d 577 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “The pertinent provision of Arizona’s present Uniform Commercial Code is A.R.S. § 47-2607(C)(1). Added Laws 1984 Ch.”
Derick Ortiz, v. Sig Sauer, Inc., 2020 DNH 036 (D.N.H. 2020). “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607 (C)(1). Sig Sauer asserts that “[w]hile the question of whether notice is provided within a reasonable time is ordinarily a question of fact, the [c]ourt can find the delay unreasonable as a matter of law” because Ortiz “should have been on notice of…”
Ortiz v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (D.N.H. 2020). “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607 (C)(1). Sig Sauer asserts that “[w]hile the question of whether notice is provided within a reasonable time is ordinarily a question of fact, the [c]ourt can find the delay unreasonable as a matter of law” because Ortiz “should have been on notice of…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607(B): 2 cases
Pac. Am. Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Bldg. Sys., Inc., 730 P.2d 273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “Assuming arguendo that these sections should be applied to a financing lease and assuming that the computer was nonconforming and that the nonconformity substantially impaired the value of the computer to Building Systems, it could have revoked its acceptance only if (1) it…”
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Vinyltech Corp., 711 F. Supp. 1513 (D. Ariz. 1989). “A.R.S. § 47-2607(B). Where a tender has been accepted, “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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607(C): 1 case
N. Arizona Gas Serv., Inc. v. Petrolane Transp., Inc., 702 P.2d 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “We do not have to decide whether this constitutes a rejection because even if we apply the subsection suggested by Petrolane the trial judge’s formula for damages must be affirmed. A.R.S. § 47-2714 (UCC § 2-714) deals with circumstances in which the buyer has accepted…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607(C)(1): 1 case
Mountain-Aire Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 703 P.2d 577 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “The pertinent provision of Arizona’s present Uniform Commercial Code is A.R.S. § 47-2607(C)(1). Added Laws 1984 Ch.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607(C)(l): 2 cases
N. Arizona Gas Serv., Inc. v. Petrolane Transp., Inc., 702 P.2d 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “We do not have to decide whether this constitutes a rejection because even if we apply the subsection suggested by Petrolane the trial judge’s formula for damages must be affirmed. A.R.S. § 47-2714 (UCC § 2-714) deals with circumstances in which the buyer has accepted…”
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Vinyltech Corp., 711 F. Supp. 1513 (D. Ariz. 1989). “A.R.S. § 47-2607(B). Where a tender has been accepted, “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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2607(E)(1): 1 case
McKesson Chem. Co. v. Van Waters & Rogers, 739 P.2d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “§ 44-2370(E)(1) (now A.R.S. § 47-2607(E)(1)), which provides: E.”
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.