(1)The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.
(2)Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and, if made with knowledge of a nonconformity, cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be seasonably cured. Acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this division for nonconformity.
(3)Where a tender has been
accepted:
(A)The buyer must, within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy; and
(B)If the claim is one for infringement or the like (subdivision (3) of Section 2312) and the buyer is sued as a result of such a breach, the buyer must so notify the seller within a reasonable time after he or she receives notice of the litigation or be barred from any remedy over for liability established by the litigation.
(4)The burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect to the goods accepted.
(5)Where the buyer is sued for breach of a warranty or other obligation for which his or her seller is answerable over:
(A)He or she may give the seller written notice of the litigation. If the notice states that the seller may defend and that if the seller does not do so he or she will be bound in any action against the seller by the buyer by any determination of fact common to the two litigation actions, then unless the seller after seasonable receipt of the notice does defend he or she is so bound.
(B)If the claim is one for infringement or the like (subdivision (3) of Section 2312) the original seller may demand in writing that the buyer turn over to the seller control of the litigation, including settlement, or else be barred from any remedy over and if the seller also agrees to bear all expense and to satisfy any adverse judgment, then unless the buyer after seasonable receipt of the demand does turn over control the buyer is so barred.
(6)The provisions of subdivisions (3), (4) and (5) apply to any obligation of a buyer to hold the seller harmless against infringement or the like (subdivision (3) of Section 2312).
Notes of Decisions
Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 3× “2010) (citations omitted) and citing Cal. Com.Code § 2607(3)(A)); 59 *950 Stearns, 763 F.”
Sanders v. Apple Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Yonai contends that Apple’s representation that the 20-inch Aluminum iMac was capable of displaying “millions of colors” constituted an express warranty between the manufacturer and the Plaintiffs. He alleges that the inability of the 20-inch Aluminum iMac to display “millions…”
Alvarez v. Chevron Corp., 656 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See Cal. Com.Code § 2607(3)(A) (“The buyer must, within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy[.”
Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 2× “2011) (internal citations omitted); see also Cal. Com. Code § 2607 (3)(A) (“The buyer must, within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy[.”
Minkler v. Apple, Inc., 65 F. Supp. 3d 810 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Apple moves to dismiss these claims, contending that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because she has not identified any actionable express or implied warranty and because she has failed to plead that she gave pre-suit notice in compliance with Cal.”
Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (S.D. Cal. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” Cal. Com.Code § 2607. “To avoid dismissal of a breach of contract or breach of warranty claim in California, ‘[a] buyer must plead that notice of the alleged breach was provided to the seller within a-reasonable time after discovery of the breach.”
In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., 293 F. Supp. 3d 888 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“(a) California Beyond California Plaintiff Gorbatchev's falling outside the terms of Huawei's Limited Warranty, California law does not supply an independent notice-related bar to his express warranty claim.”
Seely v. White Motor Co., 403 P.2d 145 (Cal. 1965).
· cites it 2× “, Com. Code, §§ 2607, 2719). But this result, even if unfortunate, follows from the rationale of Greenman , which limited the effect of a statute requiring the purchaser to give defendant notice of a breach of warranty within a reasonable time (former Civ.”
Beck v. Fca Us LLC, 273 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
“Cal. Com. Code § 2607 (3)(A) (“The buyer must, within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.”
Baranco v. Ford Motor Co., 294 F. Supp. 3d 950 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“§ 2-607 (3)(a) ; Cal. Com. Code § 2607 ; Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.”
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2607(1) — 3 cases
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2607(3)(A) — 10 cases
Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
“2010) (citations omitted) and citing Cal. Com.Code § 2607(3)(A)); 59 *950 Stearns, 763 F.”
Alvarez v. Chevron Corp., 656 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011).
“See Cal. Com.Code § 2607(3)(A) (“The buyer must, within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy[.”
Sanders v. Apple Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
“Yonai contends that Apple’s representation that the 20-inch Aluminum iMac was capable of displaying “millions of colors” constituted an express warranty between the manufacturer and the Plaintiffs. He alleges that the inability of the 20-inch Aluminum iMac to display “millions…”
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.