ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-608 (2026)

Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-608) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-608)
    Sec. 2-608. Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part.
    (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it
        (a) on the reasonable assumption that its
    
non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
        (b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his
    
acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.
    (2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.
    (3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019). · cites it 5× “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
Econ. Folding Box Corp. v. Anchor Frozen Foods Corp., 515 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “The district court analyzed Economy’s claims under the Illinois version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and found that, although Anchor accepted the boxes, it properly revoked its acceptance under 810 ILCS 5/2-608 after learning of the boxes’ defects.”
North Am. Lighting, Inc. v. Hopkins Mfg. Corp., 37 F.3d 1253 (7th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “Hopkins’ written materials support this point, as does testimony by both NAL and Hopkins employees.”
Al Maha Trading & Contracting Holding Co. v. W.S. Darley & Co., 936 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 810 ILCS 5/2-608, Uniform Commercial Code Comment ¶ 5.”
Edwards v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 310 F.R.D. 382 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “The Illinois Commercial Code closely mirrors the Uniform Commercial Code and provides buyers with both a mechanism to revoke an acceptance to an offer, 810 ILCS 5/2-608, as well as a means to cancel a contract once an acceptance has been revoked in order to claim and recover…”
Princeton Indus., Prods., Inc. v. Precision Metals Corp., 120 F. Supp. 3d 812 (N.D. Ill. 2015). · cites it 3× “Those emails cannot constitute revocation because, as the Comments to 810 ILCS 5/2-608 explain, in order for a revocation to be effective, “more will generally be necessary than the mere notification of breach____” 810 ILCS 5/2-608 (comment 5).”
Jones v. Fleetwood Motor Homes, 127 F. Supp. 2d 958 (N.D. Ill. 2000). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-608; Blankenship v. Northtown Ford, Inc.”
Casey v. Rides Unlimited Chicago, Inc., 2022 IL App (3d) 210404 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “§ 2310 (d) (2018)) (count I), the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/2-608, 2-711(1) (West 2020)) (count II), section 2 of the Act (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2020)) (count III), and section 2L of the Act (id.”
Smith v. Monaco Coach Corp., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Ill. 2004). “First, the language of section 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), codified in Illinois at 810 ILCS 5/2-608, seems to expressly limit buyers from seeking the remedy against sellers.”
Barrett v. Brian Bemis Auto World, 408 F. Supp. 2d 539 (N.D. Ill. 2005). · cites it 2× “1 (count VI); and asserts a right to revoke acceptance' of the vehicle under 810 ILCS 5/2-608 (count VII). Currently pending before this Court are Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count III (ICFA), and Defendant Amcore Bank, N.”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2020). · cites it 7× “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
Walker v. Shults Auto Sales, Inc., 2025 IL App (2d) 240459 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “Count III, brought under the UCC, claimed revocation of acceptance (810 ILCS 5/2-608 (West 2020)) and cancellation of contract (id.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) — 6 cases
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
North Am. Lighting, Inc. v. Hopkins Mfg. Corp., 37 F.3d 1253 (7th Cir. 1994). “Hopkins’ written materials support this point, as does testimony by both NAL and Hopkins employees.”
Marmi E. Graniti D'Italia Sicilmarmi S.P.A. v. Universal Granite & Marble, 757 F. Supp. 2d 773 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2020). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
Lucent Trans Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Xentris Wireless, L.L.C. (N.D. Ill. 2025).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1)(a) — 4 cases
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2020). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
Boyd v. Steve's Key City Auto, 2017 IL App (3d) 160614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Boyd v. Steve's Key City Auto, 2017 IL App (3d) 160614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1)(b) — 5 cases
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2020). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2018 IL App (2d) 170972 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2018 IL App (2d) 170972 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Hellige v. Wal-Mart, Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2022).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-608(2) — 4 cases
Al Maha Trading & Contracting Holding Co. v. W.S. Darley & Co., 936 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-608, Uniform Commercial Code Comment ¶ 5.”
Princeton Indus., Prods., Inc. v. Precision Metals Corp., 120 F. Supp. 3d 812 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “Those emails cannot constitute revocation because, as the Comments to 810 ILCS 5/2-608 explain, in order for a revocation to be effective, “more will generally be necessary than the mere notification of breach____” 810 ILCS 5/2-608 (comment 5).”
Van Hoekelen Greenhouses, Inc v. Work 6, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 220858-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
Lucent Trans Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Xentris Wireless, L.L.C. (N.D. Ill. 2025).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-608(3) — 3 cases
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
North Am. Lighting, Inc. v. Hopkins Mfg. Corp., 37 F.3d 1253 (7th Cir. 1994). “Hopkins’ written materials support this point, as does testimony by both NAL and Hopkins employees.”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2020). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1) (West 2014). See U.C.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-608(a) — 1 case
Van Hoekelen Greenhouses, Inc v. Work 6, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 220858-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-608(l)(a) — 1 case
North Am. Lighting, Inc. v. Hopkins Mfg. Corp., 37 F.3d 1253 (7th Cir. 1994). “Hopkins’ written materials support this point, as does testimony by both NAL and Hopkins employees.”
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.