Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-601 (2026)

Buyer's rights on improper delivery

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to the provisions of this Article on breach in installment contracts (section 2‑612) and unless otherwise agreed under the sections on contractual limitation of remedy (sections 2‑718 and 2‑719), if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may

(1). Reject the whole; or

(2). Accept the whole; or

(3). Accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1981–2003 · leading case: Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-601. However, revocation must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it, 11 M.”

Bell v. Red Ball Potato Co., Inc., 430 A.2d 835 (Me. 1981). “Under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-601, if delivered goods do not conform to the contract, the buyer may “(1) Reject the whole; or (2) Accept the whole; or (3) Accept any commercial unit and reject the rest.”

Schiavi Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Gagne, 510 A.2d 236 (Me. 1986). “” 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-601 (1964). See Moulton Cavity & Mold, Inc.”

Lingley v. E.B. Kitfield & Co. (In re NEPSCO, Inc.), 49 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D. Me. 1985). “Me.Rev. StatAnn. tit. 11, § 2-601(1) (1964).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-601(1) — 1 case

Lingley v. E.B. Kitfield & Co. (In re NEPSCO, Inc.), 49 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D. Me. 1985). “Me.Rev. StatAnn. tit. 11, § 2-601(1) (1964).”

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.