ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-606 (2026)

What constitutes acceptance of goods

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-606) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-606)
    Sec. 2-606. What constitutes acceptance of goods.
    (1) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer
        (a) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the
    
goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take or retain them in spite of their non-conformity; or
        (b) fails to make an effective rejection (subsection
    
(1) of Section 2-602, but such acceptance does not occur until the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect them; or
        (c) does any act inconsistent with the seller's
    
ownership; but if such act is wrongful as against the seller it is an acceptance only if ratified by him.
    (2) Acceptance of a part of any commercial unit is acceptance of that entire unit.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Tom Lange Co. Int'l, Inc., 109 F.4th 925 (7th Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Tom Lange Co. Int'l, Inc., 109 F.4th 925 (7th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(a)–(c). The district court held that Bloxom accepted the onions under § 606(1)(c).”
Al Maha Trading & Contracting Holding Co. v. W.S. Darley & Co., 936 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “810 ILCS 5/2-606(b). . Even after a buyer has accepted nonconforming goods, the Illinois UCC permits the buyer to revoke acceptance if the non-conformity “substantially impairs” the value of the goods and the buyer accepted the goods “without discovery of such nonconformity if…”
Marmi E. Graniti D'Italia Sicilmarmi S.P.A. v. Universal Granite & Marble, 757 F. Supp. 2d 773 (N.D. Ill. 2010). · cites it 3× “If the defendant is right, cases like Micro Data Base Systems, Inc. were wrongly decided, and a plaintiff selling nonconforming goods could not win on summary judgment or at trial, even if the defendant had accepted the goods by failing to reject them.”
Midwest Generation, LLC v. Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC, 445 F. Supp. 2d 928 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-606 comment 4 ("[A] buyer ..”
YCB Int'l, Inc. v. UCF Trading Co., 904 F. Supp. 2d 870 (N.D. Ill. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 810 ILCS 5/2-606 cmt. 4. . Gagnon testified that Tao made such a statement each time Gagnon visited CMC’s facto *881 ry, an event that occurred three times a year each year after about 2001.”
F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Jason Laye (7th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(a)–(c). The district court held that Bloxom accepted the onions under § 606(1)(c).”
Spirit of Excellence, LTD. v. Intercargo Ins. Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “Section 2-606 (810 ILCS 5/2-606 (West 2000)) sets forth the criteria for determining when a buyer has accepted goods as follows: "(1) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer (a) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are…”
Van Hoekelen Greenhouses, Inc v. Work 6, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 220858-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “810 ILCS 5/2-606(b). ¶ 39 A buyer may revoke acceptance of the goods when a non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the previously accepted goods.”
Midwest Builders v. Lord & Essex (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Hence, if Lord & Essex is found to have accepted the goods despite knowing that Midwest did not provide the required paperwork, then it is obligated to pay Midwest regardless of Midwest’s failure to fulfill the requirements of the purchase order document system to the letter.”
Judricks Enter. Ltd., an Ontario Corp. v. Caterpillar, Inc., a Delaware Corp., 165 F.3d 32 (7th Cir. 1998). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-606 & 5/2-607(3)(a). Section 2-606 defines acceptance as occurring where a buyer, after a reasonable opportunity to inspect, signifies that goods are conforming.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(a) — 2 cases
F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Tom Lange Co. Int'l, Inc., 109 F.4th 925 (7th Cir. 2024). “810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(a)–(c). The district court held that Bloxom accepted the onions under § 606(1)(c).”
F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Jason Laye (7th Cir. 2024). “810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(a)–(c). The district court held that Bloxom accepted the onions under § 606(1)(c).”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(b) — 1 case
Marmi E. Graniti D'Italia Sicilmarmi S.P.A. v. Universal Granite & Marble, 757 F. Supp. 2d 773 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “If the defendant is right, cases like Micro Data Base Systems, Inc. were wrongly decided, and a plaintiff selling nonconforming goods could not win on summary judgment or at trial, even if the defendant had accepted the goods by failing to reject them.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(c) — 3 cases
F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Tom Lange Co. Int'l, Inc., 109 F.4th 925 (7th Cir. 2024). “810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(a)–(c). The district court held that Bloxom accepted the onions under § 606(1)(c).”
Marmi E. Graniti D'Italia Sicilmarmi S.P.A. v. Universal Granite & Marble, 757 F. Supp. 2d 773 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “If the defendant is right, cases like Micro Data Base Systems, Inc. were wrongly decided, and a plaintiff selling nonconforming goods could not win on summary judgment or at trial, even if the defendant had accepted the goods by failing to reject them.”
F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Jason Laye (7th Cir. 2024). “810 ILCS 5/2-606(1)(a)–(c). The district court held that Bloxom accepted the onions under § 606(1)(c).”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-606(a) — 1 case
YCB Int'l, Inc. v. UCF Trading Co., 904 F. Supp. 2d 870 (N.D. Ill. 2012). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-606 cmt. 4. . Gagnon testified that Tao made such a statement each time Gagnon visited CMC’s facto *881 ry, an event that occurred three times a year each year after about 2001.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-606(b) — 2 cases
Al Maha Trading & Contracting Holding Co. v. W.S. Darley & Co., 936 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “810 ILCS 5/2-606(b). . Even after a buyer has accepted nonconforming goods, the Illinois UCC permits the buyer to revoke acceptance if the non-conformity “substantially impairs” the value of the goods and the buyer accepted the goods “without discovery of such nonconformity if…”
Van Hoekelen Greenhouses, Inc v. Work 6, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 220858-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “810 ILCS 5/2-606(b). ¶ 39 A buyer may revoke acceptance of the goods when a non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the previously accepted goods.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-606(c) — 1 case
Midwest Builders v. Lord & Essex (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Hence, if Lord & Essex is found to have accepted the goods despite knowing that Midwest did not provide the required paperwork, then it is obligated to pay Midwest regardless of Midwest’s failure to fulfill the requirements of the purchase order document system to the letter.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-606(l)(b) — 1 case
Marmi E. Graniti D'Italia Sicilmarmi S.P.A. v. Universal Granite & Marble, 757 F. Supp. 2d 773 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “If the defendant is right, cases like Micro Data Base Systems, Inc. were wrongly decided, and a plaintiff selling nonconforming goods could not win on summary judgment or at trial, even if the defendant had accepted the goods by failing to reject them.”
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.