Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-608 (2026)

Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2013 · leading case: Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., 878 A.2d 509 (Me. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., 878 A.2d 509 (Me. 2005). “See 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-608 (1995). The evidence further established that Fleetwood persistently failed to follow up on promised repairs and to complete the repairs to the Searleses’ home within a reasonable amount of time.”

Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003). “The plaintiff also asserts that the revocation "is based on 11 M.R.S.A. §§ 2-608, 2-314, 2-315, 2-316, as well as violation by Fiddes of multiple U.”

Inniss v. Methot Buick-Opel, Inc., 506 A.2d 212 (Me. 1986). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-608 (1964) allows for revocation of acceptance of goods.”

Jolovitz v. Alfa Romeo Distributors of North Am., 2000 ME 174 (Me. 2000). “1986) (citing 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-608(1)). This argument, however, was made for the first time during oral argument on appeal and was not preserved.”

Faulkingham v. Seacoast Subaru, Inc., 577 A.2d 772 (Me. 1990). “See 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-608 (1964) (providing for revocation of acceptance of commercial unit which nonconformity substantially impairs its value to the buyer).”

McCormick v. Twist Fam. Motors (Me. Super. Ct 2013). “McCormick was entitled to revoke her acceptance under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-608, Mr. Twist breached express and implied warranties, and Mr.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-608(1) — 1 case

Jolovitz v. Alfa Romeo Distributors of North Am., 2000 ME 174 (Me. 2000). “1986) (citing 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-608(1)). This argument, however, was made for the first time during oral argument on appeal and was not preserved.”

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.