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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606 (2026)

Acceptance of goods; occurrence.

✓ 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


440.2606 Acceptance of goods; occurrence.

Sec. 2606.

    (1)  Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer

    (a) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take or retain them in spite of their nonconformity; or

    (b) fails to make an effective rejection (subsection (1) of section 2602), but such acceptance does not occur until the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect them; or

    (c) does any act inconsistent with the seller's ownership; but if such act is wrongful as against the seller it is an acceptance only if ratified by him.

    (2) Acceptance of a part of any commercial unit is acceptance of that entire unit.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Alofs Mfg. Co. v. Toyota Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. (In Re Alofs Mfg. Co.), 209 B.R. 83 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alofs Mfg. Co. v. Toyota Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. (In Re Alofs Mfg. Co.), 209 B.R. 83 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1997). · cites it 8× “As noted above, passage of title is determined by Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2401 , whereas “acceptance” is controlled by Mich.”
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller, 328 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “According to the trial court's opinion, the parties agreed that defendant Miller had made a valid acceptance of the station wagon under § 2606 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.2606; MSA 19.2606. Their dispute concerned whether Miller's revocation of acceptance was…”
Colonial Dodge, Inc v. Miller, 362 N.W.2d 704 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 4× “On January 13, 1981, the trial court entered a judgment for plaintiff finding that defendant wrongfully revoked acceptance of the vehicle.”
Henderson v. Chrysler Corp., 477 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Acceptance under the UCC concerns the relationship between a buyer and a seller, MCL 440.2606; MSA 19.2606. Thus, revocation is inextricably connected to the contractual relationship between a buyer and a seller.”
Distco Laminating, Inc. v. Union Tool Corp., 265 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “On the other hand, defendant argues that MCLA 440.2606; MSA 19.2606 1 which provides that a buyer accepts goods when the buyer "does any act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership” governs.”
Capitol Dodge Sales, Inc v. N. Concrete Pipe, Inc, 346 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “We agree, finding that the evidence shows no acceptance within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2606; MSA 19.2606, and that defendant had an absolute right to reject the truck, MCL 440.”
Haken v. Scheffler, 180 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 6× “” MCLA § 440.2606(1) (e) (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.”
Pack v. Damon Corp., 320 F. Supp. 2d 545 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “§ 440.2606; M.S.A. § 19.2606. Thus, revocation is inextricably connected to the contractual relationship between a buyer and a seller.”
Intervale Steel v. Borg & Beck Div., Borg-Warner, 578 F. Supp. 1081 (E.D. Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 440.2606. Subsection (l)(b) appears to most appropriately apply in the instant case 8 and woúld require that Borg’s rejection must be both seasonably .”
Sherry Trost v. Zachary Trost, 525 F. App'x 335 (6th Cir. 2013). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606 (1). Even without a writing, a seller can recover “the agreed price of any goods actually delivered,” as long as a court can make a “just apportionment.”
Uni-Prods., Inc. v. Bearse (In Re Uni-Prods., Inc.), 153 B.R. 764 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1993). · cites it 4× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.2606(1). The record strongly suggests that subsection (b) is satisfied in this case.”
Valley Die Cast Corp. v. A.C.W., Inc., 181 N.W.2d 303 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “In support of its position, plaintiff cites § 2-606 of the Uniform Commercial Code, MCLA § 440.2606 (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.2606) which states in part: “Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer * # * “(c) does any act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership; but if such act is…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606(1) — 5 cases
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller, 328 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “According to the trial court's opinion, the parties agreed that defendant Miller had made a valid acceptance of the station wagon under § 2606 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.2606; MSA 19.2606. Their dispute concerned whether Miller's revocation of acceptance was…”
West Cent. Packing Inc. v. a F Murch Co., 311 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
Haken v. Scheffler, 180 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). “” MCLA § 440.2606(1) (e) (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.”
Uni-Prods., Inc. v. Bearse (In Re Uni-Prods., Inc.), 153 B.R. 764 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1993). “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.2606(1). The record strongly suggests that subsection (b) is satisfied in this case.”
Colonial Dodge, Inc v. Miller, 322 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606(1)(a) — 1 case
Colonial Dodge, Inc v. Miller, 322 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606(2) — 1 case
Haken v. Scheffler, 180 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). “” MCLA § 440.2606(1) (e) (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606(b) — 1 case
Fremont Ins. Co. v. Gro-Green Farms Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606(c) — 1 case
Fremont Ins. Co. v. Gro-Green Farms Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606(l)(a) — 1 case
Colonial Dodge, Inc v. Miller, 322 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606(l)(b) — 1 case
Uni-Prods., Inc. v. Bearse (In Re Uni-Prods., Inc.), 153 B.R. 764 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1993). “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.2606(1). The record strongly suggests that subsection (b) is satisfied in this case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2606(l)(c) — 1 case
Bev Smith, Inc. v. Atwell, 301 Mich. App. 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
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.