Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-606 (2026)
What constitutes acceptance of goods
-
Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer
- after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take or retain them in spite of their non-conformity; or
- fails to make an effective rejection (§ 4-2-602(1)), but such acceptance does not occur until the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect them; or
- does any act inconsistent with the seller's ownership; but if such act is wrongful as against the seller it is an acceptance only if ratified by him.
- Acceptance of a part of any commercial unit is acceptance of that entire unit.
History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-606; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-606.
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Commercial Law — The Effect of the Seller's Right to Cure on the Buyer's Remedy of Rescission, 28 Ark. L. Rev. 297.
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Paulson, Survey of Arkansas Law: Business Law, 2 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 161.
Case Notes
Acts Inconsistent with Seller's Ownership.
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 this section, and the rejection of the nonconforming goods after a second test of the seed's germination level was within a reasonable time and seasonably notified seller under § 4-2-602 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).
Failure to Reject.
Under this section after failure to make an effective rejection, buyer was bound by his acceptance of the automobile and unless it was rejected within a reasonable time with notification to the seller of his decision, he waived any warranties of defective condition of the car. Green Chevrolet Co. v. Kemp, 241 Ark. 62, 406 S.W.2d 142 (1966).
The failure of the conditional vendee of a used truck to notify the vendor of his rejection of the truck for defects and his continuing to drive it for several months after the purchase of it amounted to an acceptance of the truck under this section. Hudspeth Motors, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 238 Ark. 410, 382 S.W.2d 191 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Stimson Tractor Co. v. Heflin, 257 Ark. 263, 516 S.W.2d 379 (1974).
Goods held to have been accepted under subdivision (1)(b). Watson v. Miears, 612 F. Supp. 1235 (W.D. Ark. 1984), aff'd, 772 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1985).
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).
Use After Discovery of Unsuitability.
The buyer's use of a combine, after discovery that it would not work in his fields, constituted acceptance of the combine even though assured by the salesman that the seller would make it work in absence of evidence of authority of the salesman to make such statements. Ingle v. Marked Tree Equip. Co., 244 Ark. 1166, 428 S.W.2d 286 (1968).
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).
Cited: KLPR TV, Inc. v. Visual Elec. Corp., 327 F. Supp. 315 (W.D. Ark. 1971); Herrick v. Robinson, 267 Ark. 576, 595 S.W.2d 637 (1980).