Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (2026)
Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part
✓ current as of July 2026
- (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.
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-608; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-608, eff. 3/31/1968.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2001).
Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2001). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (1999). 4 . Teel went on to hold that the seller was entitled, under the theory of quantum meruit, to the reasonable rental rate for the copier.”
Beck Enter., Inc. v. Hester, 512 So. 2d 672 (Miss. 1987). “When a buyer has accepted goods [3] and subsequently discovers a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the buyer may invoke Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (1972) which provides conditions for the buyer to revoke acceptance.”
Rester v. Morrow, 491 So. 2d 204 (Miss. 1986). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (1) (1972). The resolution of such a question of ultimate fact may be taken from the jury only in conformity with our familiar rule emanating from Paymaster Oil Mill Co.”
Guerdon Indus., Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So. 2d 1202 (Miss. 1988). “In the language of the Uniform Commercial Code, the plaintiff seeks a revocation of acceptance of the goods under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 . *1205 I. SHOULD THE APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE APPELLEE FAILED TO MAKE A PRIMA FACIE CASE…”
JL Teel Co., Inc. v. Houston United Sales, 491 So. 2d 851 (Miss. 1986). “On the other hand, by analogy to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (1972), we consider that Houston's acceptance was reasonably induced by the difficulty of discovery of defects before acceptance and by Teel's assurances.”
Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac v. Smith, 523 So. 2d 324 (Miss. 1988). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (1)(b) (1972); Rester v.”
Gast v. Rogers-Dingus Chevrolet, 585 So. 2d 725 (Miss. 1991). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-606 (1)(c), § 75-2-608(2) (Supp.”
Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Novak, 418 So. 2d 801 (Miss. 1982). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (1972), provides the remedy of revocation of acceptance by a buyer upon breach of contract by the seller.”
Mercury Marine v. Clear River Const. Co., 839 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2003). “We likewise noted: Smith later tried to get out of his deal with Fitzner. This occurred on August 20, 1984, when Smith delivered to Fitzner a letter "rejecting the contract" and telling Fitzner he "wanted .”
BC's Heating & Air & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 892 F. Supp. 2d 779 (S.D. Miss. 2012). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (2011). It is undisputed that the purchase contract was between Midsouth and BC’s.”
Castle Fabrics, Inc. v. Fortune Furniture Mfrs., Inc., 459 F. Supp. 409 (N.D. Miss. 1978). “CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Since the court has previously found that the disputed shipments conformed to oral orders for the fabric placed by Fortune, 2 it follows that Fortune’s revocation of its prior acceptance of the fabric was wrongful as against Castle, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-608…”
Hallam v. Southaven R.V. Ctr., Inc. (N.D. Miss. 2019). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (1). Although the Hallams’ claims against the two defendants will require some different proof (breach of the warranty in the case of the claims against REV, and substantial impairment for the claim against Southaven RV), the claims generally rely on…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608(1) — 1 case
Guerdon Indus., Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So. 2d 1202 (Miss. 1988). “In the language of the Uniform Commercial Code, the plaintiff seeks a revocation of acceptance of the goods under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 . *1205 I. SHOULD THE APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE APPELLEE FAILED TO MAKE A PRIMA FACIE CASE…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608(2) — 1 case
Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2001). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (1999). 4 . Teel went on to hold that the seller was entitled, under the theory of quantum meruit, to the reasonable rental rate for the copier.”
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.