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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607 (2026)

Acceptance of goods; effect; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable.

✓ 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


440.2607 Acceptance of goods; effect; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable.

Sec. 2607.

    (1)  The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.

    (2) Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and if made with knowledge of a nonconformity cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be seasonably cured but acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this article for nonconformity.

    (3) Where a tender has been accepted

    (a) the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy; and

    (b) if the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection (3) of section 2312) and the buyer is sued as a result of such a breach he must so notify the seller within a reasonable time after he receives notice of the litigation or be barred from any remedy over for liability established by the litigation.

    (4) The burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect to the goods accepted.

    (5) Where the buyer is sued for breach of a warranty or other obligation for which his seller is answerable over

    (a) he may give his seller written notice of the litigation. If the notice states that the seller may come in and defend and that if the seller does not do so he will be bound in any action against him by his buyer by any determination of fact common to the 2 litigations, then unless the seller after seasonable receipt of the notice does come in and defend he is so bound

    (b) if the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection (3) of section 2312) the original seller may demand in writing that his buyer turn over to him control of the litigation including settlement or else be barred from any remedy over and if he also agrees to bear all expense and to satisfy any adverse judgment, then unless the buyer after seasonable receipt of the demand does turn over control the buyer is so barred.

    (6) The provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) apply to any obligation of a buyer to hold the seller harmless against infringement or the like (subsection (3) of section 2312).

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1965–2022 · leading case: Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 11× “Specifically, plaintiff argues that MCL 440.2607 does not apply to breach-of-warranty claims, but that if it does, she presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact that defendant Honda was on notice that, in the words of the official comment to the *123 section of…”
Old Kent Bank v. Kal Kustom Enter., 660 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 19× “Plaintiff claims that MCL 440.2607 applies only to buyers who accept goods, not to buyers who reject them.”
Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 581 F. Supp. 1514 (E.D. Mich. 1984). · cites it 11× “The court finds that Eaton is barred from recovering any damages under this theory; although Magnavox did breach its express warranty, Eaton failed to supply Magnavox with timely notice of the breach as required by Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. §§ 440.2607 and 440.”
Am. Bumper & Mfg. Co. v. Transtechnology Corp., 652 N.W.2d 252 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “Comment four to MCL 440.2607 states that the “content of the notification need merely be sufficient to let the seller know that the transaction is still troublesome and must be watched.”
Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc, 593 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “The buyer must pay for the goods at the contract rate, MCL 440.2607(1); MSA 19.2607(1), and may only revoke his acceptance if the defect substantially impairs its value to him.”
Contech Casting, LLC v. ZF Steering Sys., LLC, 931 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Mich. 2013). · cites it 8× “The pertinent UCC provision regarding notice provides: Where a tender has been accepted (a) the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.”
S C Gray, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 286 N.W.2d 34 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “The trial court also instructed the jury that "the buyer is entitled to recover as damages the loss resulted in the ordinary course of events from the sellers [sic] breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable”.”
Baranco v. Ford Motor Co., 294 F. Supp. 3d 950 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “Plaintiffs argue that notice was given when they presented their vehicles to the dealers for repair of the defect.”
In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Prods., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (S.D. Ind. 2001). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607 (3)(a); Tenn.”
Cova v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., 182 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “, supra, fn 9, p 100, holding that compliance with the notice requirement of § 49 of the Uniform Sales Act (UCC § 2-607(3) (a), MCLA § 440.2607(3) (a) [Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.”
Michigan Sugar Co. v. Jebavy-Sorenson Orchard Co., 239 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “The "pan scale” was discovered in November, 1969, but Michigan Sugar was not notified that any of the sugar used had "pan scale” in it until May, 1971.”
24 Ucc rep.serv.2d 843, prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,914 Bailey Farms, Inc., a Michigan Corp., Cross-Appellee v. Nor-Am Chem. Co., 27 F.3d 188 (6th Cir. 1994). “, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2607 (West 1967).”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607(1) — 5 cases
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, plaintiff argues that MCL 440.2607 does not apply to breach-of-warranty claims, but that if it does, she presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact that defendant Honda was on notice that, in the words of the official comment to the *123 section of…”
Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc, 593 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “The buyer must pay for the goods at the contract rate, MCL 440.2607(1); MSA 19.2607(1), and may only revoke his acceptance if the defect substantially impairs its value to him.”
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller, 328 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
Intervale Steel v. Borg & Beck Div., Borg-Warner, 578 F. Supp. 1081 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
Colonial Dodge, Inc v. Miller, 322 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607(2) — 3 cases
S C Gray, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 286 N.W.2d 34 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “The trial court also instructed the jury that "the buyer is entitled to recover as damages the loss resulted in the ordinary course of events from the sellers [sic] breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable”.”
Capitol Dodge Sales, Inc v. N. Concrete Pipe, Inc, 346 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
Gary a Watson v. Champs Auto Sales Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607(3) — 4 cases
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, plaintiff argues that MCL 440.2607 does not apply to breach-of-warranty claims, but that if it does, she presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact that defendant Honda was on notice that, in the words of the official comment to the *123 section of…”
Cova v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., 182 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). “, supra, fn 9, p 100, holding that compliance with the notice requirement of § 49 of the Uniform Sales Act (UCC § 2-607(3) (a), MCLA § 440.2607(3) (a) [Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.”
S C Gray, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 286 N.W.2d 34 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “The trial court also instructed the jury that "the buyer is entitled to recover as damages the loss resulted in the ordinary course of events from the sellers [sic] breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable”.”
Falmouth Coop. Co. v. Peter Bontekoe (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607(3)(a) — 16 cases
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, plaintiff argues that MCL 440.2607 does not apply to breach-of-warranty claims, but that if it does, she presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact that defendant Honda was on notice that, in the words of the official comment to the *123 section of…”
Am. Bumper & Mfg. Co. v. Transtechnology Corp., 652 N.W.2d 252 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Comment four to MCL 440.2607 states that the “content of the notification need merely be sufficient to let the seller know that the transaction is still troublesome and must be watched.”
Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 581 F. Supp. 1514 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “The court finds that Eaton is barred from recovering any damages under this theory; although Magnavox did breach its express warranty, Eaton failed to supply Magnavox with timely notice of the breach as required by Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. §§ 440.2607 and 440.”
Old Kent Bank v. Kal Kustom Enter., 660 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Plaintiff claims that MCL 440.2607 applies only to buyers who accept goods, not to buyers who reject them.”
Masb-Seg Prop./Cas. Pool, Inc v. Metalux, 586 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607(4) — 7 cases
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, plaintiff argues that MCL 440.2607 does not apply to breach-of-warranty claims, but that if it does, she presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact that defendant Honda was on notice that, in the words of the official comment to the *123 section of…”
Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc, 593 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “The buyer must pay for the goods at the contract rate, MCL 440.2607(1); MSA 19.2607(1), and may only revoke his acceptance if the defect substantially impairs its value to him.”
Am. Bumper & Mfg. Co. v. Transtechnology Corp., 652 N.W.2d 252 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Comment four to MCL 440.2607 states that the “content of the notification need merely be sufficient to let the seller know that the transaction is still troublesome and must be watched.”
Guaranteed Constr. Co. v. Gold Bond Prods., 395 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
Capitol Dodge Sales, Inc v. N. Concrete Pipe, Inc, 346 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607(5) — 2 cases
Old Kent Bank v. Kal Kustom Enter., 660 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Plaintiff claims that MCL 440.2607 applies only to buyers who accept goods, not to buyers who reject them.”
Consumers Power Co. v. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co., 636 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Mich. 1986).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2607(5)(a) — 3 cases
Old Kent Bank v. Kal Kustom Enter., 660 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Plaintiff claims that MCL 440.2607 applies only to buyers who accept goods, not to buyers who reject them.”
Ameron, Inc. v. Chemische Werke Huls AG, 760 F. Supp. 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
Ford Motor Co. v. Bendix Corp., 268 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
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.