Ark. Code Ann. » Title 4 Chapter 02
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-612 (2026)

“Installment contract” — Breach

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. An “installment contract” is one which requires or authorizes the delivery of goods in separate lots to be separately accepted, even though the contract contains a clause “each delivery is a separate contract” or its equivalent.
  2. The buyer may reject any installment which is non-conforming if the non-conformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured or if the non-conformity is a defect in the required documents; but if the non-conformity does not fall within subsection (3) and the seller gives adequate assurance of its cure the buyer must accept that installment.
  3. Whenever non-conformity or default with respect to one (1) or more installments substantially impairs the value of the whole contract there is a breach of the whole. But the aggrieved party reinstates the contract if he accepts a non-conforming installment without seasonably notifying of cancellation or if he brings an action with respect only to past installments or demands performance as to future installments.

History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-612; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-612.

Research References

ALR.

Construction and application of UCC § 2-612(2), dealing with rejection of goods under installment contracts. 61 A.L.R.5th 611.

Case Notes

Cited: Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enters., Inc., 46 Ark. App. 237, 878 S.W.2d 786 (1994).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1994–2013 · leading case: Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Comment 4 to § 2-612 of the Uniform Commercial Code [Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-612 (Repl.1991)] states that substantial impairment must be judged in terms of the normal or specifically known purposes of the contract.”
Bowen v. Gardner, 425 S.W.3d 875 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). “t of a breach of contract by the buyer, the Uniform Commercial Code sets out the available remedies for the seller: Where the buyer wrongfully rejects or revokes acceptance of goods or fails to make a payment due on or before delivery or repudiates with respect to a part or the…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-612(3) — 1 case
Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). “Comment 4 to § 2-612 of the Uniform Commercial Code [Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-612 (Repl.1991)] states that substantial impairment must be judged in terms of the normal or specifically known purposes of the contract.”
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.