Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-602 (2026)
Manner and effect of rightful rejection
- Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender. It is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller.
-
Subject to the provisions of the two (2) following sections on rejected goods (§§ 4-2-603, 4-2-604),
- after rejection any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the seller; and
- 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 chapter (§ 4-2-711(3)), 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
- the buyer has no further obligations with regard to goods rightfully rejected.
- The seller's rights with respect to goods wrongfully rejected are governed by the provisions of this chapter on seller's remedies in general (§ 4-2-703).
History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-602; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-602.
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Notes, Ozark Kenworth, Inc. v. Neidecker: A Buyer's Continued Use of Goods After Revocation of Acceptance, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 857.
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Paulson, Survey of Arkansas Law: Business Law, 2 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 161.
Case Notes
Goods Previously Accepted.
In action by seller of panels for price of last shipment in which buyer counterclaimed for damages caused by the fact that the panels were of a lighter weight than that ordered, the issue was not acceptance or rejection, but revocation of acceptance, and use of the last shipment despite knowledge of its unsuitability did not bar counterclaim for damages for nonconformity of the original shipment. Jones v. Atkins, 254 Ark. 472, 494 S.W.2d 448 (1973).
Questions of Fact.
What constitutes a nonconforming delivery, acceptance, rejection, or revocation of acceptance are questions of fact to be determined within the framework of the facts of each particular case. Marine Mart, Inc. v. Pearce, 252 Ark. 601, 480 S.W.2d 133 (1972).
Reasonable Time for Rejection.
Under this section the buyer had a right to reject the car but this must be done within a reasonable time after delivery. Green Chevrolet Co. v. Kemp, 241 Ark. 62, 406 S.W.2d 142 (1966).
The trial court found that the buyer had not timely rescinded the transaction, the buyer was limited to the remedies available for a breach of contract in regard to the accepted goods, and the buyer was not entitled to an award of damages under either § 4-2-714 or § 4-2-715 since the buyer failed to give notice of the alleged breach to the seller within a reasonable time after the buyer discovered or should have discovered the breach. Herrick v. Robinson, 267 Ark. 576, 595 S.W.2d 637 (1980).
Seasonable Notification.
The resale of seed without knowledge of the defect that the seed had a lower germination level than that certified was not an inconsistent act by buyer constituting acceptance under § 4-2-606, and the rejection of the nonconforming goods after the second test of the germination level was within a reasonable time and seasonably notified seller under this section and thus was a valid rejection under § 4-2-601. Jacob Hartz Seed Co. v. Coleman, 271 Ark. 756, 612 S.W.2d 91 (1981).
Use After Revocation.
It was error for the question of the buyer's use of a truck after revocation not to have been submitted to the jury as to its reasonableness. Ozark Kenworth, Inc. v. Neidecker, 283 Ark. 196, 672 S.W.2d 899 (1984).
Waiver of Breach of Warranty.
The buyer of a combine with tires too narrow for use in his fields, but which the seller assured him would give him satisfaction, waived any breach of warranty by failure to reject it and continuing to attempt to use it upon assurance of the salesman that the seller would make it work. Ingle v. Marked Tree Equip. Co., 244 Ark. 1166, 428 S.W.2d 286 (1968).
Cited: KLPR TV, Inc. v. Visual Elec. Corp., 327 F. Supp. 315 (W.D. Ark. 1971); Unlaub Co. v. Sexton, 568 F.2d 72 (8th Cir. 1977); McFall Chevrolet Co. v. Collins, 271 Ark. 469, 609 S.W.2d 118 (1980); United States v. Rorex, 737 F.2d 753 (8th Cir. 1984); Microsize, Inc. v. Ark. Microfilm, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 49, 780 S.W.2d 574 (1989).