Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608 (2026)
Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 608. (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.
Formerly: Acts 1963, c.317, s.2-608.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Hahn v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 434 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982).
Hahn v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 434 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “Indiana Code 26-1-2-608 Section 608(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…”
Tom Trisler d/b/a Canal House Antiques v. Clayton L. Carter, 996 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, I.C. § 26-1-2-608 provides that: (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…”
Boydston v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 511 N.E.2d 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). “Three months later Boydston returned the vehicle to Eastgate, and on June 10, 1982, he formally notified East-gate he was revoking his acceptance of the car pursuant to Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-2-608 (Burns 1974).”
Alexin, LLC v. Olympic Metals, LLC, 53 N.E.3d 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Accordingly, the evidence shows that Alexin’s acceptance of the nonconforming goods was not reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovering the nonconformity or by any assurances from Olympic, and Alexin did not rightfully revoke its acceptance of the 2090 sheets…”
Lile v. Kiesel, 871 N.E.2d 995 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Specifically, I.C. § 26-1-2-608 provides for the revocation of acceptance of goods in whole or in part, stating: (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially *998 impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (a) on the…”
Royal Bus. Machines, Inc. v. Lorraine Corp., 633 F.2d 34 (7th Cir. 1980). “Regarding the RBC I machines, the district court found that Booher accepted the machines without discovering the latent defects, including the fire hazard defect, which did not become apparent until the machines were in use.”
Kimco Leasing Co. v. Lake Hortonia Props., 640 A.2d 18 (Vt. 1993). “We note that had defendants relied on “revocation of acceptance,” Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-2-608 (Burns 1992), rather than on breach of implied warranties as their defense to plaintiff’s claim, the result here may well have been different.”
Smith v. Nexus RVs, LLC (N.D. Ind. 2020). “Under Indiana Code § 26-1-2-608(1), a 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.”
Wayne Mfg. LLC v. Cold Headed Fasteners & Assemblies Inc (N.D. Ind. 2023). “Code § 26-1-2-607 and Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608 .17 (ECF No. 76 5-9).”
Pegg v. Nexus RVs LLC (N.D. Ind. 2019). “] Under Indiana Code § 26-1-2-608, a buyer can revoke his acceptance of the commercial unit if several conditions occur, including the non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer and the revocation occurs within a reasonable time after the buyer…”
Kilgore v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2021). “However problematic that may be, see Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608 (2); Smith v. Nexus RVs, 468 F.”
Freese-Pettibon v. Nexus RVs, LLC (N.D. Ind. 2023). “Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608 (2). Nonwritten notice or equivocal notice of revocation isn’t sufficient.”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608(1) — 4 cases
Tom Trisler d/b/a Canal House Antiques v. Clayton L. Carter, 996 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, I.C. § 26-1-2-608 provides that: (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…”
Royal Bus. Machines, Inc. v. Lorraine Corp., 633 F.2d 34 (7th Cir. 1980). “Regarding the RBC I machines, the district court found that Booher accepted the machines without discovering the latent defects, including the fire hazard defect, which did not become apparent until the machines were in use.”
Smith v. Nexus RVs, LLC (N.D. Ind. 2020). “Under Indiana Code § 26-1-2-608(1), a 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.”
Freese-Pettibon v. Nexus RVs, LLC (N.D. Ind. 2023). “Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608 (2). Nonwritten notice or equivocal notice of revocation isn’t sufficient.”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608(2) — 2 cases
Tom Trisler d/b/a Canal House Antiques v. Clayton L. Carter, 996 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, I.C. § 26-1-2-608 provides that: (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…”
Royal Bus. Machines, Inc. v. Lorraine Corp., 633 F.2d 34 (7th Cir. 1980). “Regarding the RBC I machines, the district court found that Booher accepted the machines without discovering the latent defects, including the fire hazard defect, which did not become apparent until the machines were in use.”
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.