ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-601 (2026)

Buyer's rights on improper delivery

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-601) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-601)
    Sec. 2-601. Buyer's rights on improper delivery. Subject to the provisions of this Article on breach in installment contracts (Section 2-612) and unless otherwise agreed under the sections on contractual limitations of remedy (Sections 2-718 and 2-719), if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may
        (a) reject the whole; or
        (b) accept the whole; or
        (c) accept any commercial unit or units and reject
    
the rest.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2008–2020 · leading case: Econ. Folding Box Corp. v. Anchor Frozen Foods Corp., 515 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Econ. Folding Box Corp. v. Anchor Frozen Foods Corp., 515 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2008). “Economy also points out that in its Trial Brief and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Anchor quoted 810 ILCS 5/2-601, which defines a buyer’s right to reject non-conforming goods and states that it is “[s]ubject to the provisions of this Article on…”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-601 (West 2014). Once the buyer accepts the goods, however, he may only revoke that acceptance if the “non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him.”
YCB Int'l, Inc. v. UCF Trading Co., 904 F. Supp. 2d 870 (N.D. Ill. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 810 ILCS 5/2-601 (explaining that the buyer may choose to accept non-conforming goods, reject non-conforming goods, or accept some and reject the rest).”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2020). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-601 (West 2014). Once the buyer accepts the goods, however, he may only revoke that acceptance if the “non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him.”
Econ. Folding Box v. Anchor Frozen Foods (7th Cir. 2008). “Economy also points out that in its Trial Brief and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Con- clusions of Law, Anchor quoted 810 ILCS 5/2-601, which defines a buyer’s right to reject non-conforming goods and states that it is “[s]ubject to the provisions of this Article on…”
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.