A. The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it:
1. On the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
2. Without discovery of such nonconformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.
B. Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.
C. A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.
D. The provisions of this section do not apply to a new motor vehicle which is subject to the provisions of title 44, chapter 9, article 5.
Notes of Decisions
Pac. Am. Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Bldg. Sys., Inc., 730 P.2d 273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Building Systems later argued *100 that it had validly revoked its acceptance of the lease pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-2608. In granting summary judgment to Building Systems the trial court found that as a matter of law Pacific American Leasing should bear the risk of the computer…”
Gilbert v. Monaco Coach Corp., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2004).
“D. Revocation of Acceptance Claim Defendant argues that there can be no revocation of acceptance under either Arizona or Georgia law because there is no privity of contract between plaintiffs and defendant.”
Golembieski v. O'Rielly R v. Ctr., Inc., 708 P.2d 1325 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “§ 44-2371(B), in that their use after all substantial complaints were eliminated and before they elected to revoke acceptance caused a substantial change to the condition of the vehicle which would prejudice the seller should the court order return of the vehicle.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2608(B) — 1 case
Golembieski v. O'Rielly R v. Ctr., Inc., 708 P.2d 1325 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“§ 44-2371(B), in that their use after all substantial complaints were eliminated and before they elected to revoke acceptance caused a substantial change to the condition of the vehicle which would prejudice the seller should the court order return of the vehicle.”
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.