Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-711 (2026)
Buyer's remedies in general — Buyer's security interest in rejected goods
-
Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (§ 4-2-612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid
- “cover” and have damages under the next section as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to the contract; or
- recover damages for non-delivery as provided in this chapter (§ 4-2-713).
- Where the seller fails to deliver or repudiates the buyer may also
- On rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance a buyer has a security interest in goods in his possession or control for any payments made on their price and any expenses reasonably incurred in their inspection, receipt, transportation, care and custody and may hold such goods and resell them in like manner as an aggrieved seller (§ 4-2-706).
History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-711; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-711.
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.
Note, Arkansas's New Motor Vehicle Quality Assurance Act — A Branch of Hope For Lemon Owners, 16 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 493.
Case Notes
In General.
The buyer's options of revocation of acceptance under this section and recovery of damages for breach of warranty under § 4-2-714 are two separate and distinct strands of remedies under the UCC and the buyer may pursue either remedy or both since they offer separate forms of relief. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).
When both fraud and breach of contract are pled, a buyer may pursue, but not recover, both revocation of acceptance and damages for breach of warranty. Roach v. Concord Boat Corp., 317 Ark. 474, 880 S.W.2d 305 (1994).
Cover.
Where buyer chooses to purchase substitute goods, its remedy is limited to that of § 4-2-712, unless the purchase does not constitute “cover.” Dickson v. Delhi Seed Co., 26 Ark. App. 83, 760 S.W.2d 382 (1988).
Damages.
Upon repudiation of contract for sale of farm equipment, party who did not repudiate was entitled to cancel the contract and recover his purchase price as well as incidental and consequential damages. Lake Village Implement Co. v. Cox, 252 Ark. 224, 478 S.W.2d 36 (1972).
The correct measure of damages on cancellation of a contract for nonconformity was a refund of payments made and not the difference between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted. Frontier Mobile Home Sales, Inc. v. Trigleth, 256 Ark. 101, 505 S.W.2d 516 (1974).
Justifiable Revocation.
Under the UCC, once goods are accepted buyer is entitled to cancel the contract and recover so much as has been paid only upon establishing that he has justifiably revoked his acceptance. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).
Where a farmer bought a tractor for use at certain times of the year and to cope with certain soil and weather conditions, but the farmer was deprived of the use of the tractor during those critical periods due to a combination of factory and service-related defects, the tractor's nonconformity under the sales contract substantially impaired the value of the tractor to the farmer and was sufficient to warrant the farmer's revocation of acceptance. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).
Cited: Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S.W.2d 922 (1970); Hanna Lumber Co. v. Neff, 265 Ark. 462, 579 S.W.2d 95 (1979); Herrick v. Robinson, 267 Ark. 576, 595 S.W.2d 637 (1980); Microsize, Inc. v. Ark. Microfilm, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 49, 780 S.W.2d 574 (1989).