Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-508 (2026)
Cure by seller of improper tender or delivery; replacement
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Where any tender or delivery by the seller is rejected because nonconforming and the time for performance has not yet expired, the seller may seasonably notify the buyer of his intention to cure and may then within the contract time make a conforming delivery.
- (2) Where the buyer rejects a nonconforming tender which the seller had reasonable grounds to believe would be acceptable with or without money allowance the seller may if he seasonably notifies the buyer have a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender.
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-508; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-508, eff. 3/31/1968.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1986–2020 · leading case: Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019).
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019). “” (citing section 75-2-508 of the Mississippi Code Annotated ( Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-508 (1972)) but not further elaborating)); Waddell v.”
Watson Quality Ford, Inc. v. Casanova, 999 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 2008). “1988): We recognize that a strict reading of the cure provision of Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-508 (1972) reveals no explicit application to the revocation situation with which we are here concerned .”
Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac v. Smith, 523 So. 2d 324 (Miss. 1988). “NOTES [1] We recognize that a strict reading of the cure provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-508 (1972) reveals no explicit application to the revocation situation with which we are here concerned.”
Rester v. Morrow, 491 So. 2d 204 (Miss. 1986). “In Accord Zoss v. Royal Chevrolet, Inc., 11 UCCRS 527 (Ind.”
Guerdon Indus., Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So. 2d 1202 (Miss. 1988). “One witness testified to being scared to walk on the kitchen floor and of the bedroom floor falling through. It must be noted however, that before a buyer (Gentry) has a right to revoke acceptance for defects such as those outlined here, he must afford the seller (Guerdon) a…”
Mercury Marine v. Clear River Const. Co., 839 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2003). “In reversing and rendering a jury verdict in favor of Smith for the purchase price of the car, we noted the following regarding a seller's right to cure: We recognize that a strict reading of the cure provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-508 (1972) reveals no explicit application…”
Tucker v. Aqua Yacht Harbor Corp., 749 F. Supp. 142 (N.D. Miss. 1990). “In reaching this conclusion, the court stated: We recognize that a strict reading of the cure provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-508 (1972) reveals no explicit application to [a] revocation situation.”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2020). “” (citing section 75-2-508 of the Mississippi Code Annotated ( Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-508 -5- (1972)) but not further elaborating)); Waddell v.”
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.