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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2612 (2026)

Installment contract; breach.

✓ 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


440.2612 Installment contract; breach.

Sec. 2612.

    (1)  An "installment contract" is one which requires or authorizes the delivery of goods in separate lots to be separately accepted, even though the contract contains a clause "each delivery is a separate contract" or its equivalent.

    (2) The buyer may reject any installment which is nonconforming if the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured or if the nonconformity is a defect in the required documents; but if the nonconformity does not fall within subsection (3) and the seller gives adequate assurance of its cure the buyer must accept that installment.

    (3) Whenever nonconformity or default with respect to one or more installments substantially impairs the value of the whole contract there is a breach of the whole. But the aggrieved party reinstates the contract if he accepts a nonconforming installment without seasonably notifying of cancellation or if he brings an action with respect only to past installments or demands performance as to future installments.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: Kirby v. Chrysler Corp., 554 F. Supp. 743 (D. Maryland 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kirby v. Chrysler Corp., 554 F. Supp. 743 (D. Maryland 1982). · cites it 2× “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2612(1) (1975).”
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller, 328 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The UCC limits the perfect tender rule only by express delineation found in § 2-612, MCL 440.2612; MSA 19.2612, pertaining to installment contracts and §§ 2-718, MCL 440.”
Extrusion Painting, Inc. v. Awnings Unlimited, Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 985 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 3× “§ 440.2612. The threshold issue which first must be addressed is whether an installment contract was entered into by the parties.”
Midwest Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, L.L.C. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 965 F. Supp. 1003 (W.D. Mich. 1997). “UCC § 2-612 is equivalent to MCLA 440.2612.) 5 . There is some conflicting case law and commentary concerning the efficacy of the "perfect tender” rule even in the context of a single delivery contract.”
In re Meridian Auto. Sys.-Composites Operations, Inc., 372 B.R. 710 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2612 (2007). . Section 365(b)(1) states: "If there has been a default in an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor, the trustee may not assume such contract or lease unless, at the time of assumption of such contract or lease, the trustee —…”
Renco Elec. Inc v. Uusi LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “This conclusion is further supported by MCL 440.2612. If we accept Renco’s characterization of the parties’ agreement as an installment contract, Nartron could reject a nonconforming installment if the nonconformity “substantially impair[ed] the value of that installment and…”
Renco Elec. Inc v. Uusi LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “This conclusion is further supported by MCL 440.2612. If we accept Renco’s characterization of the parties’ agreement as an installment contract, Nartron could reject a nonconforming installment if the nonconformity “substantially impair[ed] the value of that installment and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2612(1) — 3 cases
Kirby v. Chrysler Corp., 554 F. Supp. 743 (D. Maryland 1982). “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2612(1) (1975).”
Renco Elec. Inc v. Uusi LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “This conclusion is further supported by MCL 440.2612. If we accept Renco’s characterization of the parties’ agreement as an installment contract, Nartron could reject a nonconforming installment if the nonconformity “substantially impair[ed] the value of that installment and…”
Renco Elec. Inc v. Uusi LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “This conclusion is further supported by MCL 440.2612. If we accept Renco’s characterization of the parties’ agreement as an installment contract, Nartron could reject a nonconforming installment if the nonconformity “substantially impair[ed] the value of that installment and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2612(2) — 1 case
Kirby v. Chrysler Corp., 554 F. Supp. 743 (D. Maryland 1982). “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2612(1) (1975).”
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.