Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2605 (2026)

Rejection of goods; failure of buyer to particularize defect.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.2605 Rejection of goods; failure of buyer to particularize defect.

Sec. 2605.

    (1) A buyer's failure to state in connection with rejection a particular defect that is ascertainable by reasonable inspection precludes the buyer from relying on the unstated defect to justify rejection or to establish breach if either of the following applies:

    (a) The seller could have cured the defect if the buyer stated the defect seasonably.

    (b) Between merchants, if the seller after rejection makes a request in writing for a full and final written statement of all defects on which the buyer proposes to rely.

    (2) Payment against documents made without reservation of rights precludes recovery of the payment for defects apparent in the documents.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 87, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2017–2017 · leading case: Renco Elec. Inc v. Uusi LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Renco Elec. Inc v. Uusi LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Nartron further admits that a buyer may be deemed to have waived an objection to nonconforming goods under MCL 440.2605, which provides, in relevant part: (1) A buyer’s failure to state in connection with rejection a particular defect that is ascertainable by reasonable…”
Renco Elec. Inc v. Uusi LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Nartron further admits that a buyer may be deemed to have waived an objection to nonconforming goods under MCL 440.2605, which provides, in relevant part: (1) A buyer’s failure to state in connection with rejection a particular defect that is ascertainable by reasonable…”
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.