Authority to revoke acceptance in certain circumstances.

- Buyer who has accepted goods may under certain conditions enumerated in O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 revoke acceptance. Clow Corp. v. Metro Pipeline Co., 442 F. Supp. 583 (N.D. Ga. 1977).

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 gives buyer right to revoke acceptance within reasonable time for nonconformity not within purchaser's knowledge at time of acceptance if such nonconformity substantially impairs its value to the buyer. Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 125 Ga. App. 462, 188 S.E.2d 250 (1972).

Even after acceptance, the buyer has a right to revoke acceptance under the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 for nonconformance that substantially impairs the value of the goods. Prudential Metal Supply Corp. v. Atlantic Freight Sales Co., 204 Ga. App. 439, 419 S.E.2d 520 (1992).

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608(1)(b) refers to situations where nonconformity was discovered after acceptance. Trailmobile Div. of Pullman, Inc. v. Jones, 118 Ga. App. 472, 164 S.E.2d 346 (1968).

No revocation after acceptance and installation.

- Once buyer has accepted and installed supplied units, any subsequent attempt at revocation is ineffective. United States ex rel. Fram Corp. v. Crawford, 443 F.2d 611 (5th Cir. 1971).

Continued use is inconsistent with a revocation of acceptance. See Jenkins v. GMC, 240 Ga. App. 636, 524 S.E.2d 324 (1999).

Because the purchaser of an automobile continued to drive the vehicle, pay taxes on it, and insure it after the purchaser complained of defects, these post-revocation acts constituted exercises in ownership by the purchaser that were inconsistent with the seller's ownership; the buyer's attempted revocation was ineffective under O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-606(1)(c) and11-2-608(1)(b). Hines v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (N.D. Ga. 2005).

In a consumer's suit against a car dealer for revocation of acceptance, regarding the sale of a used car which the dealer's salesman falsely represented had not been in a wreck, it was not error for the trial court to grant a directed verdict to the dealer because, while there was evidence that the consumer attempted to revoke the acceptance and the dealer refused, the consumer subsequently acted inconsistently with the dealer's ownership by continuing to possess the car and by installing a sunroof in it. Mitchell v. Backus Cadillac-Pontiac, Inc., 274 Ga. App. 330, 618 S.E.2d 87 (2005).

When a consumer sued a car dealer for revocation of acceptance concerning the car she bought from it, the consumer's continued use of the car and continued making payments on it were inconsistent with the dealer's ownership of the car and defeated the revocation of acceptance claim, under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608(1). Small v. Savannah Int'l Motors, Inc., 275 Ga. App. 12, 619 S.E.2d 738 (2005).

Remedy available despite warranties limitation.

- Buyer's revocation of acceptance of lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to the buyer is, under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608, an available remedy even where seller has attempted to limit its warranties. Hub Motor Co. v. Zurawski, 157 Ga. App. 850, 278 S.E.2d 689 (1981).

Revocation of acceptance under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 is an available remedy even where the seller has attempted to limit its warranties. Esquire Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Arrendale, 182 Ga. App. 528, 356 S.E.2d 250 (1987).

Revocation is an available remedy even where the seller has attempted to limit its warranties by use of "as is" language under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316. Prudential Metal Supply Corp. v. Atlantic Freight Sales Co., 204 Ga. App. 439, 419 S.E.2d 520 (1992).

Revocation of acceptance is an available remedy even where the dealer has attempted to limit warranties. Reeb v. Daniels Lincoln-Mercury Co., 193 Ga. App. 817, 389 S.E.2d 367 (1989).

Revocation required privity of contract and could only be asserted against seller.

- Summary judgment on an automobile purchaser's revocation claim was appropriate because revocation of a sale requires privity of contract and thus can be asserted only against a seller, but the purchaser was suing the automobile distributor, not the dealership which sold the purchaser the car. Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Ga. 2005).

Reacceptance of goods.

- Buyer who has attempted to reject rather than to accept goods may nonetheless accept them by virtue of the buyer's post-rejection conduct with respect to them. Likewise, a buyer who purports to revoke acceptance of goods may be found to have reaccepted them if, after such revocation, the buyer performs acts which are inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods. Griffith v. Stovall Tire & Marine, Inc., 174 Ga. App. 137, 329 S.E.2d 234 (1985).

A buyer reaccepted a motor vehicle after purported revocation of acceptance, even though the buyer gave sufficient notice that the buyer revoked acceptance of the vehicle, when the buyer refused the seller access to it, persisted in efforts to have the vehicle repaired by entities other than the seller, and continued to possess and use the vehicle, which had been driven over 120,000 miles. Griffith v. Stovall Tire & Marine, Inc., 174 Ga. App. 137, 329 S.E.2d 234 (1985).

Buyer, who purported to revoke acceptance of goods, could be found to have re-accepted them if, after such revocation, the buyer performed acts which were inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods. Olson v. Ford Motor Co., 258 Ga. App. 848, 575 S.E.2d 743 (2002).

Buyers revoked their acceptance of a motor home based on failure to repair alleged defects; the buyers' continued and extensive use of the luxury motor home for traveling to exotic places was not shown to be necessary, was inconsistent with revocation, and instead indicated reacceptance of the motor home. Gill v. Blue Bird Wanderlodge, F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2004).

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a dealership and a lender in a purchaser's action to recover damages for the dealership's failure to accept the purchaser's attempted revocation under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 of an automobile purchase because the dealership and lender argued that the purchaser reaccepted the car since the purchaser continued driving the car after sending the revocation letter, and questions of fact existed about whether the purchaser's revocation was timely, whether the purchaser reaccepted the car after the tender, and whether the alleged defects substantially impaired the car's value to the purchaser; whether the purchaser's revocation was timely, whether the purchaser reaccepted the car, and whether the alleged defects substantially impaired the car's value to the purchaser were questions of fact for the jury. Mauk v. Pioneer Ford Mercury, 308 Ga. App. 864, 709 S.E.2d 353 (2011).

Breach of warranty to replace defective parts.

- Where in standard form new car warranty manufacturer and dealer expressly disclaim all warranties except that "any part of this vehicle found defective under this warranty will be repaired or replaced," the Uniform Commercial Code requires that a defect first be called to the attention of entities designated in the warranty, but does not prevent revocation of acceptance of vehicle by buyer after seller refuses to repair or replace defective parts. Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 125 Ga. App. 462, 188 S.E.2d 250 (1972).

Revocation of acceptance of peanuts, after blanching.

- The act of blanching peanuts, perfected by raising the temperature to a certain degree, thus causing the outer red hulls to fall off, constituted an acceptance of the goods pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-606(1)(c), as an "act inconsistent with the seller's ownership," but the blanching process did not substantially change the peanuts, so the buyer's revocation of acceptance of the peanuts, after the blanching process, was effective. Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 803 F.2d 1160 (11th Cir. 1986).

Seller's knowledge of problem and adjustment to account.

- Revocation of a contractor's acceptance of equipment could be found where there was evidence that the supplier was well aware of the problems with the equipment and made an adjustment to the contractor's account that the contractor did not find to be adequate. Williams v. Crispaire Corp., 225 Ga. App. 172, 483 S.E.2d 653 (1997).

Issues of fact.

- Issues such as whether an effective revocation of acceptance was made, whether reasonable notification of revocation was given to the seller, and whether the value of the goods was substantially impaired are ordinarily matters for determination by the trier of fact, even where the buyer has continued to use nonconforming goods after an alleged revocation of acceptance. Griffith v. Stovall Tire & Marine, Inc., 174 Ga. App. 137, 329 S.E.2d 234 (1985).

Question of substantial impairment sufficient to authorize revocation is for jury, as well as question of reasonable time allowed seller to comply with warranty provision of sales contract. Hub Motor Co. v. Zurawski, 157 Ga. App. 850, 278 S.E.2d 689 (1981).

Granting defendants a directed verdict on a truck buyer's revocation of acceptance claim under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 was error when the buyer testified that the truck had been in for repairs more than 30 times, that the buyer had tried to get a replacement or a refund, and that the buyer had continued to use the truck and to pay the note, taxes, and insurance on the truck because the buyer could not afford to buy another truck while attempting to resolve the problems with this one and because the buyer had no other means of transportation; although certain provisions in O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-602 and11-2-606 might support the unqualified proposition that continued use was inconsistent with a revocation of acceptance, issues such as whether there was effective revocation of acceptance were ordinarily jury matters, and expecting a buyer to discontinue use could be contrary to the UCC's rule of reasonableness. Franklin v. Augusta Dodge, Inc., 287 Ga. App. 818, 652 S.E.2d 862 (2007).

Factors considered in determining whether revocation made in reasonable time.

- In determining whether revocation was made within a reasonable time after the buyer discovered or should have discovered the nonconformity, it is proper to consider all the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the defect, the sophistication of the buyer, and the difficulty of its discovery. Bicknell v. B & S Enters., 160 Ga. App. 307, 287 S.E.2d 310 (1981).

Attempted revocation too long after purchase.

- Trial court properly granted a car dealership summary judgment on the purchasers' revocation of acceptance claim because pretermitting whether the car at issue was nonconforming at the time the car was sold, the purchasers' own undisputed evidence showed that the purchasers saw paint defects immediately before purchasing the car, asked if the car had been in a collision and the sales person replied that the sales person was "not sure" on that point, and the record also showed that the purchasers attempted revocation came long after the purchasers put thousands of miles on the car. Paulk v. Thomasville Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 317 Ga. App. 780, 732 S.E.2d 297 (2012).

Trial court properly granted the seller summary judgment on the buyers' revocation of acceptance claim because the 13-month delay of revocation after a substantial change in the condition of the vehicle was unreasonable as a matter of law. Edel v. Southtowne Motors of Newnan II, Inc., 338 Ga. App. 376, 789 S.E.2d 224 (2016).

No revocation for car buyer who could not show defective at purchase.

- There was no remedy of revocation because proof that the car was defective when sold was an essential element of the buyer's claim, which the buyer did not satisfy; the evidence showed that the buyer drove the used car approximately 26,000 miles before the cooling system began to malfunction. Dildine v. Town & Country Truck Sales, Inc., 259 Ga. App. 732, 577 S.E.2d 882 (2003).

Tender not required to revoke acceptance.

- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a dealership and a lender in a purchaser's action to recover damages for the dealership's failure to accept the purchaser's attempted revocation under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 of an automobile purchase; the Uniform Commercial Code does not require that a buyer tender unconforming goods to effect the revocation of a sales contract and that portion of Scott v. Team Toyota, 276 Ga. App. 257 (2005) holding otherwise is overruled. Mauk v. Pioneer Ford Mercury, 308 Ga. App. 864, 709 S.E.2d 353 (2011).

Buyer need not tender nonconforming goods as a condition precedent to a claim based on a revocation of acceptance theory of recovery, much less make an unconditional tender, because the condition precedent to a claim for damages due to the seller's failure to accept the buyer's contract revocation under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608(2) is that the buyer give the seller notice of the revocation within a reasonable time and before the condition of the goods changes substantially from unrelated causes. Mauk v. Pioneer Ford Mercury, 308 Ga. App. 864, 709 S.E.2d 353 (2011).

Insufficient opportunity to cure.

- Motor coach buyer's revocation of acceptance claim under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608(1)(b) failed because the buyer was barred by the doctrine of invited error from denying that the buyer was required under § 11-2-608(1)(b) to provide the seller with an opportunity to seasonably cure any nonconformities in the coach prior to revocation. Car Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Blue Bird Body Co., F.3d (11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2009)(Unpublished).

Futility exception to opportunity cure requirement did not apply.

- Motor coach buyer's revocation of acceptance claim under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608(1)(b) failed because the buyer's providing only one opportunity to repair before the extent of the defect was truly apparent was not reasonable under O.C.G.A. § 11-1-204; the futility exception to providing an opportunity to cure did not apply because there was no evidence that the buyer knew prior to revocation that the seller would have been unable to repair the coach. Car Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Blue Bird Body Co., F.3d (11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2009)(Unpublished).

Cited in Systems Consultants v. Eng Enters., Inc., 123 Ga. App. 641, 182 S.E.2d 188 (1971); Solomon Refrigeration, Inc. v. Osburn, 148 Ga. App. 772, 252 S.E.2d 686 (1979); Atlanta Cutlery Corp. v. Queen Cutlery Co., 168 Ga. App. 584, 309 S.E.2d 691 (1983); Freeman v. Hubco Leasing, Inc., 253 Ga. 698, 324 S.E.2d 462 (1985); Bakery Servs., Inc. v. Thornton Chevrolet, Inc., 224 Ga. App. 31, 479 S.E.2d 363 (1996); BDI Distribs. v. Beaver Computer Corp., 232 Ga. App. 316, 501 S.E.2d 839 (1998); Imex Int'l v. Wires Eng'g, 261 Ga. App. 329, 583 S.E.2d 117 (2003).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 67A Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 1192-1215.

6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:569.

C.J.S.

- 77A C.J.S., Sales, § 192.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-608.

ALR.

- Buyer's acceptance of part of goods as affecting right to damages for failure to complete delivery, 169 A.L.R. 595.

Buyer's acceptance of delayed or defective instalment of goods as waiver of similar default as to later instalments, 32 A.L.R.2d 1117.

Time for revocation of acceptance of goods under UCC § 2-608(2), 65 A.L.R.3d 354.

Measure and elements of buyer's recovery upon revocation of acceptance of goods under UCC § 2-608(1), 65 A.L.R.3d 388.

What constitutes "substantial impairment" entitling buyer to revoke his acceptance of goods under UCC § 2-608(1), 38 A.L.R.5th 191.