Iowa Code » Chapter 554 — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 554.2608 (2026)

Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. The buyer may revoke the buyer’s acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to the buyer if the buyer has accepted it

a. on the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or

b. without discovery of such nonconformity if the buyer’s 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.\n\nTue Dec 09 22:02:40 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 554 (108, 4) §554.2608, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE 46\n\n 3. A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if the buyer had rejected them. [C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §9998; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, §554.70; C66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §554.2608] \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa 1996). · cites it 2× “The determining issue under the Hylers’ Magnuson-Moss claim, however, was whether Autorama complied with the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.”
Shinrone, Inc. v. Tasco, Inc., 283 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 1979). · cites it 2× “The trial court’s decision contained a finding that Shinrone rightfully revoked acceptance of the facility pursuant to section 554.2608, The Code 1977. Tasco asserts that, after such a finding, the trial court could not award consequential damages.”
Grace Label, Inc. v. Kliff, 355 F. Supp. 2d 965 (S.D. Iowa 2005). · cites it 2× “” Iowa Code § 554.2608 (l)(b). Whether Kliff should reasonably have discovered the odor is a fact issue for the jury.”
J&R Transp., Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. & Thompson Truck & Trailer, Inc., f/k/a Hawkeye Truck & Trailer (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “” See Iowa Code § 554.2608 (1). Here J&R bargained with Thompson for trucks in “as is” condition.”
Meat Requirements Coordination, Inc. v. Ggo, Inc., 673 F.2d 229 (8th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “See Iowa Code Ann. § 554.2608 (2) (1967) (UCC § 2-608(2)).”
Jason Cannon v. Bodensteiner Implement Co., Windridge Implements, LLC, Eck & Glass, Inc., D/B/A Epg Ins., Inc., & Cnh Am. LLC, D/B/A Case Ih (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “28, 2004) (citing Iowa Code § 554.2608 (1)). Of note, in his petition, Cannon seeks equitable, not statutory, rescission.”
Jason Cannon v. Bodensteiner Implement (Iowa 2017). · cites it 2× “28, 2004) (citing Iowa Code § 554.2608 (1)). Of note, in his petition, Cannon seeks equitable, not statutory, rescission.”
— Iowa Code § 554.2608(1)(b) — 1 case
J&R Transp., Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. & Thompson Truck & Trailer, Inc., f/k/a Hawkeye Truck & Trailer (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). “” See Iowa Code § 554.2608 (1). Here J&R bargained with Thompson for trucks in “as is” condition.”
— Iowa Code § 554.2608(2) — 1 case
J&R Transp., Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. & Thompson Truck & Trailer, Inc., f/k/a Hawkeye Truck & Trailer (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). “” See Iowa Code § 554.2608 (1). Here J&R bargained with Thompson for trucks in “as is” condition.”
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.