K.S.A. » Chapter 84
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 84-2-608 (2026)

Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

84-2-608. Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part. (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he 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 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.

History: L. 1965, ch. 564, § 88; January 1, 1966.

KANSAS COMMENT, 1996

1. This section substitutes "revocation of acceptance" for the pre-Code concept of "rescission." The Code does not use the term "rescission" because it may apply either to transfer of title to the goods or to the contract of sale, and so is ambiguous. In addition, the Code does not require election between revocation of acceptance and a damage remedy; "rescission" often did. Subsection (3) of this section and Official Comment 1 make clear that both remedies are available to the buyer. See also 84-2-711 (authorizing damages for buyer that has revoked acceptance). Indeed, under subsection (3) a buyer that revokes acceptance has the same rights and duties toward the goods as if it had rejected them. A seller, however, has no right to cure following revocation of acceptance. See 1996 Kansas Comment 5 to 84-2-508. The Kansas Court of Appeals has held that the common law remedy of rescission continues to be available in cases under Article 2. See Perry v. Goff Motors, Inc., 12 K.A.2d 139, 736 P.2d 949 (1987).

2. Subsection (1) defines when a buyer may revoke its acceptance of the goods. A buyer may revoke acceptance when (1) there is a nonconformity that "substantially impairs" the value of the goods to the buyer; and (2) the buyer accepted the goods either (a) without discovery of the defect if acceptance was reasonably induced either by the seller's assurances or the difficulty of discovery, or (b) with discovery of the defect on the reasonable assumption that the seller would cure. See Newmaster v. Southeast Equip., Inc., 231 K. 466, 646 P.2d 488 (1982). In McGilbray v. Scholfield Winnebago, Inc., 221 K. 605, 561 P.2d 832 (1977), the Kansas Supreme Court adopted a subjective-objective test for determining when the substantial impairment requirement is met. A buyer must show the nonconformity of the goods, the needs and circumstances of the buyer (subjectively), and that the nonconformity in fact (objectively) impaired the value of the goods to the buyer. See also Newmaster v. Southeast Equip., Inc., supra; Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 232 K. 458, 657 P.2d 517 (1983). The loss of confidence by the buyer may be relevant to determining whether the value of the goods was substantially impaired. See Hemmert Agric. Aviation, Inc. v. Mid- Continent Aircraft Corp., 663 F. Supp. 1546 (D. Kan. 1987).

3. Subsection (2) states the procedural requirements for an effective revocation of acceptance. The buyer must revoke within a reasonable time after it discovered or should have discovered the nonconformity and before any substantial change in the condition of the goods not caused by the defect. Sometimes revocation will be timely even if it occurs long after the sale, if, for example, the delay is due to the seller's attempts to repair the goods. For a discussion of the factors to consider, cf. 1996 Kansas Comment 1 to 84-2-602. Continued use of the goods might defeat an attempted revocation. At a minimum, a seller is entitled to compensation for the fair value of the buyer's use of the goods after revocation. Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 233 K. 1044, 668 P.2d 139 (1983). The buyer also must give notice of revocation to the seller. Official Comment 5 to this section describes what the notice must contain. See also Delhomme Indus., Inc. v. Houston Beechcraft, Inc., 735 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1984) (applying Kansas law) (buyer that "resells" goods back to seller has not revoked acceptance).

4. The Kansas "Lemon Law" provides a special revocation remedy for consumer purchasers and lessees of motor vehicles. See K.S.A. 50-645 & 50-646. For a discussion of the legal issues arising under state lemon laws, see Barkley Clark & Christopher Smith, The Law of Product Warranties § 7.03[5] (1984 & Supp. 1996).

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Ways and instances that a buyer can revoke his acceptance, Keith Hey, 7 W.L.J. 35, 38 (1967).

"Beefing Up Product Warranties: A New Dimension In Consumer Protection," Barkley Clark, Michael J. Davis, 23 K.L.R. 567, 574, 588, 591, 601 (1975).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Contracts," Mary Kathleen Babcock, 27 K.L.R. 215, 217 (1979).

"The Buyer's Right to Return Unsatisfactory Goods—The Uniform Commercial Code Remedies of Rejection and Revocation of Acceptance," George I. Wallach, 20 W.L.J. 20 (1980).

"Anticipating Common Issues in Revocation of Acceptance Cases," Ronald L. Shalz, 12 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, p. 21 (1988).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Plaintiff met requirements for proper revocation of acceptance. Newmaster v. Southeast Equipment, Inc., 231 Kan. 466, 467, 468, 470, 471, 646 P.2d 488 (1982).

2. Failure to repair, established nonconformity under the contract which substantially impaired the value to the buyer; entitles buyer to revoke acceptance. Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 232 Kan. 458, 461, 463, 657 P.2d 517 (1983).

3. Buyer justifiably revoking acceptance entitled to prejudgment interest from date of revocation; setoff due seller for buyer's continued use of goods deductible only from total judgment. Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 233 Kan. 1044, 1045, 1047, 1048, 1054, 668 P.2d 139 (1983).

4. Revocation of acceptance permitted where flying characteristics directly contrary to representations; disclaimers of express and implied warranties ineffective. Hemmert Agr. Aviation v. Mid-Continent Aircraft, 663 F. Supp. 1546, 1551 (1987).

5. Cited in bankruptcy proceeding relating to debtor's claim involving mobile home purchase and homestead. In re Murphy, 367 B.R. 711, 715 (2007).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1982–2007 · leading case: Johnson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 668 P.2d 139 (Kan. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 668 P.2d 139 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 6× “: This action involves revocation of acceptance pursuant to K.S.A. 84-2-608. The issues raised in this appeal focus on the appropriate measure of damages for a buyer’s use of goods after revocation of acceptance.”
Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 657 P.2d 517 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 84-2-608 reads: “(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it *462 “(a) on the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured and it has not been…”
Newmaster v. Se. Equip., Inc., 646 P.2d 488 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 6× “: This action was filed to obtain a revocation of acceptance under terms authorized by K.S.A. 84-2-608 and a judgment for the amount of the purchase price.”
Fullerton Aircraft Sales & Rentals, Inc. v. Beech Aircraft Corp. Beech Acceptance Corp., Defendants, 842 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1988). · cites it 4× “On February 12, 1986, Fullerton filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Beech and Page seeking to revoke its acceptance of the aircraft pursuant to K.S.A. 84-2-608(1) on the theory that alleged abnormal vibrations rendered…”
Hemmert Agric. Aviation, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Aircraft Corp., 663 F. Supp. 1546 (D. Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff seeks to employ the remedy of revocation of acceptance set forth at K.S.A. 84-2-608: (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (a) on the reasonable assumption…”
Kvassay v. Murray, 808 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “Kvassay contends the trial court erred in ruling damages for lost profits were not recoverable, arguing under K.S.A. 84-2-608 he should have been permitted to collect lost profits under his contract with Great American.”
Scotwood Indus., Inc. v. Frank Miller & Sons, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Kan. 2006). · cites it 6× “Revocation is governed by K.S.A. § 84-2-608, which states: (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (a) on the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured…”
In re Murphy, 367 B.R. 711 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 4× “The Debtors assert that they have revoked acceptance of the mobile home under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 84-2-608 (1996) and are entitled to a return of the sale price and to retain a security interest in the home to secure repayment of the price under Kan.”
Kee v. Campbell, 661 P.2d 831 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). “84-2-601, -602) or if he had already accepted it he could have revoked his acceptance (K.S.A. 84-2-608). In either event he was required to notify the plaintiff seller of his election within a reasonable time.”
— K.S.A. § 84-2-608(1) — 1 case
Fullerton Aircraft Sales & Rentals, Inc. v. Beech Aircraft Corp. Beech Acceptance Corp., Defendants, 842 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1988). “On February 12, 1986, Fullerton filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Beech and Page seeking to revoke its acceptance of the aircraft pursuant to K.S.A. 84-2-608(1) on the theory that alleged abnormal vibrations rendered…”
— K.S.A. § 84-2-608(2) — 2 cases
Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 657 P.2d 517 (Kan. 1983). “K.S.A. 84-2-608 reads: “(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it *462 “(a) on the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured and it has not been…”
Hemmert Agric. Aviation, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Aircraft Corp., 663 F. Supp. 1546 (D. Kan. 1987). “Plaintiff seeks to employ the remedy of revocation of acceptance set forth at K.S.A. 84-2-608: (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (a) on the reasonable assumption…”
— K.S.A. § 84-2-608(3) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 668 P.2d 139 (Kan. 1983). “: This action involves revocation of acceptance pursuant to K.S.A. 84-2-608. The issues raised in this appeal focus on the appropriate measure of damages for a buyer’s use of goods after revocation of acceptance.”
Scotwood Indus., Inc. v. Frank Miller & Sons, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Kan. 2006). “Revocation is governed by K.S.A. § 84-2-608, which states: (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (a) on the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured…”
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.