Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2607

Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 104.2607  Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over.

      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 the buyer 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 NRS 104.2312) and the buyer is sued as a result of such a breach the buyer must so notify the seller within a reasonable time after he or she 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 the buyer’s seller is answerable over:

      (a) The buyer may give the 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 the seller will be bound in any action against the seller by his or her buyer by any determination of fact common to the two litigations, then unless the seller after seasonable receipt of the notice does come in and defend the seller is so bound.

      (b) If the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection 3 of NRS 104.2312) the original seller may demand in writing that the seller’s buyer turn over to him or her control of the litigation including settlement or else be barred from any remedy over and if the seller 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 NRS 104.2312).

      (Added to NRS by 1965, 806)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: General Electric Supply Co. v. Mt. Wheeler Power, Inc.
General Electric Supply Co. v. Mt. Wheeler Power, Inc. (1978) nev “Appellant contends the district court erred in finding (a) it had breached the contract by failing to make timely deliveries of the material and, (b) respondent had given appellant notice of such breach within a reasonable time, as required by NRS 104.2607(3)(a). Where a trial…”
Flores v. Merck & Co., Inc. (2022) nvd · cites it 4× “See 28 NRS § 104.2607(3)(a) (providing that “[t]he buyer must within a reasonable time after 2 be barred from any remedy”); see also Banh v.”
Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc. (2019) nvd · cites it 3× “6 Defendant also is not entitled to summary judgment based on the notice requirement in 7 NRS § 104.2607(3)(a). That statute states, “[t]he buyer must within a reasonable time after the 8 buyer discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be…”
8 Mine, LLC v. The Eljen Group, LLC (2020) nvd · cites it 2× “4 The Eljen Group/Jennings seek the same amount of damages in this claim as they do in 5 the unjust enrichment, fraud, and conversion claims.”
Wood v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. (2022) nvd · cites it 2× “Specifically, Winnebago argues that notice 8 of breach of warranty is a condition precedent for an implied warranty action in Nevada under 9 NRS 104.2607, and asserts that 15 U.S.C. § 2310 (e) requires notice in consumer remedy cases to 10 afford a reasonable opportunity to cure.”
Partie v. Ethicon Women's Health and Urology (2022) nvd “First, Partie argues that NRS 104.2607(3)(a) does not require her to give pre- 25 suit notice to the defendants.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2607(1) — 1 case
8 Mine, LLC v. The Eljen Group, LLC (2020) nvd “4 The Eljen Group/Jennings seek the same amount of damages in this claim as they do in 5 the unjust enrichment, fraud, and conversion claims.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2607(3)(a) — 5 cases
General Electric Supply Co. v. Mt. Wheeler Power, Inc. (1978) nev “Appellant contends the district court erred in finding (a) it had breached the contract by failing to make timely deliveries of the material and, (b) respondent had given appellant notice of such breach within a reasonable time, as required by NRS 104.2607(3)(a). Where a trial…”
Flores v. Merck & Co., Inc. (2022) nvd “See 28 NRS § 104.2607(3)(a) (providing that “[t]he buyer must within a reasonable time after 2 be barred from any remedy”); see also Banh v.”
Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc. (2019) nvd “6 Defendant also is not entitled to summary judgment based on the notice requirement in 7 NRS § 104.2607(3)(a). That statute states, “[t]he buyer must within a reasonable time after the 8 buyer discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be…”
Wood v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. (2022) nvd “Specifically, Winnebago argues that notice 8 of breach of warranty is a condition precedent for an implied warranty action in Nevada under 9 NRS 104.2607, and asserts that 15 U.S.C. § 2310 (e) requires notice in consumer remedy cases to 10 afford a reasonable opportunity to cure.”
Partie v. Ethicon Women's Health and Urology (2022) nvd “First, Partie argues that NRS 104.2607(3)(a) does not require her to give pre- 25 suit notice to the defendants.”
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.