Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 4
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-602 (2024)

Manner and effect of rightful rejection

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender. It is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the two following sections on rejected goods (sections 4- 2-603 and 4-2-604):

(a) After rejection any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the seller; and

(b) 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 article (subsection (3) of section 4-2- 711), 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

(c) The buyer has no further obligations with regard to goods rightfully rejected.

(3) The seller's rights with respect to goods wrongfully rejected are governed by the provisions of this article on seller's remedies in general (section 4-2-703). Source: L. 65: p. 1328, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-602.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1982–1998 · leading case: Surplus Elec. Corp. v. Gallin, 653 P.2d 752 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Surplus Elec. Corp. v. Gallin, 653 P.2d 752 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The corollary to this finding is that purchaser’s failure seasonably to notify seller of the ultimate rejection of such of the goods as purchaser deemed unusable rendered any claim of rejection ineffective, § 4-2-602(1), C.R.S.1973, and constituted an acceptance.”
Rocky Mountain Microsystems, Inc. v. Pub. Saf. Sys., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 1352 (D. Colo. 1998). · cites it 2× “C.R.S. § 4-2-602(1). Defendant did not timely reject the goods 2 and its ultimate position in this litigation of non-acceptance or rejection was not “seasonable.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-602(1): 2 cases
Surplus Elec. Corp. v. Gallin, 653 P.2d 752 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). “The corollary to this finding is that purchaser’s failure seasonably to notify seller of the ultimate rejection of such of the goods as purchaser deemed unusable rendered any claim of rejection ineffective, § 4-2-602(1), C.R.S.1973, and constituted an acceptance.”
Rocky Mountain Microsystems, Inc. v. Pub. Saf. Sys., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 1352 (D. Colo. 1998). “C.R.S. § 4-2-602(1). Defendant did not timely reject the goods 2 and its ultimate position in this litigation of non-acceptance or rejection was not “seasonable.”
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.