Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608

Acceptance of goods; revocation, time, notice, effect.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

Act 174 of 1962

440.2608 Acceptance of goods; revocation, time, notice, effect.

Sec. 2608.

(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.

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Colonial Dodge, Inc v. Miller

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Colonial Dodge, Inc v. Miller (1985) mich · cites it 23× “This case requires the Court to decide whether the failure to include a spare tire with a new automobile can constitute a substantial impairment in the value of that automobile entitling the buyer to revoke his acceptance of the vehicle under MCL 440.2608; MSA 19.2608. We hold…”

Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc (1999) michctapp · cites it 10× “A UCC § 2-608(l)(b) This case presents a question of first impression regarding the effect of a seller’s attempts to repair where the buyer revokes acceptance under § 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code (ucc), adopted by the Michigan Legislature and codified at MCL 440.2608;…”

DAVIS v. LaFONTAINE MOTORS, INC (2006) michctapp · cites it 7× “REVOCATION Plaintiffs also argue that revocation of the contract, pursuant to MCL 440.2608, is an available remedy because LaFontaine refused to perform repairs under the manufacturer’s warranty irrespective of the disclaimer.”

Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co. (2013) michctapp · cites it 3× “2607(1) to a retail transaction and holding that once goods are accepted the buyer must pay for them and may only revoke acceptance under MCL 440.2608). Plaintiff next argues that, relying on comment 4 and caselaw, notice is sufficient to create a question of fact if it places…”

Davis v. Forest River, Inc (2008) michctapp · cites it 12× “, remedy, available by statute under MCL 440.2608, but not available to plaintiff in this case because plaintiff and defendant were not in privity of contract.”

Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller (1982) michctapp · cites it 8× “Their dispute concerned whether Miller's revocation of acceptance was valid under MCL 440.2608; MSA 19.2608, the section providing that a buyer may revoke acceptance of a commercial unit where the nonconformity "substantially impairs its value to him".”

Harnden v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) mied · cites it 8× “Under Michigan law, revocation of acceptance of a good is stated in Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608 and provides: (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…”

Kelynack v. Yamaha Motor Corp. (1986) michctapp · cites it 3× “MCL 440.2608; MSA 19.2608. Plaintiff was awarded the unrefunded balance of his purchase money, court costs, and attorney fees in the amount of $8,520.”

Henderson v. Chrysler Corp. (1991) michctapp · cites it 4× “Although plaintiff's claim was referred to as rescission in the complaint, it is apparent that plaintiff *340 was asserting revocation of acceptance of a motor vehicle sales contract pursuant to art 2, § 608 of the UCC, MCL 440.2608; MSA 19.2608, which provides: (1) The buyer…”

Ducharme v. a & S RV CENTER, INC. (2004) mied · cites it 4× “§ 440.2608 which provides: (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…”

Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co. (1984) mied · cites it 4× “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.2608(2). Second, Eaton did not and could not hold the controllers in order for Magnavox to remove them.”

Pack v. Damon Corp. (2004) mied · cites it 3× “§ 440.2608 (Count III); breach of express warranty actionable under 15 U.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608(1) — 9 cases

Colonial Dodge, Inc v. Miller (1985) mich “This case requires the Court to decide whether the failure to include a spare tire with a new automobile can constitute a substantial impairment in the value of that automobile entitling the buyer to revoke his acceptance of the vehicle under MCL 440.2608; MSA 19.2608. We hold…”

Faircloth v. Family Independence Agency (1999) michctapp

DAVIS v. LaFONTAINE MOTORS, INC (2006) michctapp “REVOCATION Plaintiffs also argue that revocation of the contract, pursuant to MCL 440.2608, is an available remedy because LaFontaine refused to perform repairs under the manufacturer’s warranty irrespective of the disclaimer.”

Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc (1999) michctapp “A UCC § 2-608(l)(b) This case presents a question of first impression regarding the effect of a seller’s attempts to repair where the buyer revokes acceptance under § 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code (ucc), adopted by the Michigan Legislature and codified at MCL 440.2608;…”

Parsley v. Monaco Coach Corp. (2004) miwd

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608(1)(a) — 2 cases

Jane E Meyering v. Porsche Cars North America Inc (2019) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608(1)(b) — 2 cases

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608(2) — 6 cases

Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co. (2013) michctapp “2607(1) to a retail transaction and holding that once goods are accepted the buyer must pay for them and may only revoke acceptance under MCL 440.2608). Plaintiff next argues that, relying on comment 4 and caselaw, notice is sufficient to create a question of fact if it places…”

Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co. (1984) mied “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.2608(2). Second, Eaton did not and could not hold the controllers in order for Magnavox to remove them.”

Davis v. Forest River, Inc (2008) michctapp “, remedy, available by statute under MCL 440.2608, but not available to plaintiff in this case because plaintiff and defendant were not in privity of contract.”

Intervale Steel v. Borg & Beck Div., Borg-Warner (1984) mied

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608(3) — 6 cases

Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co. (1984) mied “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.2608(2). Second, Eaton did not and could not hold the controllers in order for Magnavox to remove them.”

Minsel v. El Rancho Mobile Home Center, Inc. (1971) michctapp

Miguel Gomez v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (2018) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608(l)(a) — 1 case

Harnden v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) mied “Under Michigan law, revocation of acceptance of a good is stated in Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608 and provides: (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…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2608(l)(b) — 3 cases

Bev Smith, Inc. v. Atwell (2013) michctapp

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.