1. An “installment contract” is one which requires or authorizes the delivery of goods in separate lots to be separately accepted, even though the contract contains a clause “each delivery is a separate contract” or its equivalent.
2. The buyer may reject any installment which is nonconforming if the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured or if the nonconformity\n\nTue Dec 09 22:02:40 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 554 (108, 4) 47 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, §554.2615\n\nis a defect in the required documents; but if the nonconformity does not fall within subsection 3 and the seller gives adequate assurance of its cure the buyer must accept that installment.
3. Whenever nonconformity or default with respect to one or more installments substantially impairs the value of the whole contract there is a breach of the whole. But the aggrieved party reinstates the contract if the aggrieved party accepts a nonconforming installment without seasonably notifying of cancellation or if the aggrieved party brings an action with respect only to past installments or demands performance as to future installments. [C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §9974; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, §554.46; C66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §554.2612] Referred to in §554.2103, 554.2601, 554.2616, 554.2703, 554.2711 \n
Notes of Decisions
Pillsbury Co. v. Ward, 250 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1977).
· cites it 4× “2703, The Code: "Where the buyer wrongfully rejects or revokes acceptance of goods or fails to make a payment due on or before delivery or repudiates with respect to a part or the whole, then with respect to any goods directly affected and, if the breach is of the whole contract…”
Shinrone, Inc. v. Tasco, Inc., 283 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 1979).
· cites it 2× “the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (section 554.2612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may in addition to recovering…”
Purina Mills, L.L.C. v. Less, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Iowa 2003).
· cites it 2× “2703 provides: Where the buyer wrongfully rejects or revokes acceptance of goods or fails to make a payment due on or before delivery or repudiates with respect to a part or the whole, then with respect to any goods directly affected and, if the breach is of the whole contract…”
Rexing Quality Eggs v. Rembrandt Enter., Inc., 360 F. Supp. 3d 817 (S.D. Ind. 2018).
“" Iowa Code § 554.2612 (3). Rexing, however, makes no showing or argument that having to spend more on delivery or packaging from certain locations would impair in any way the value of the whole contract.”
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.