NRS
104.2608 Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part.
1. The buyer may revoke his or her
acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially
impairs its value to the buyer if the buyer 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 or her 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 the buyer had
rejected them.
(Added to NRS by 1965,
807)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2022 · leading case:
Waddell v. L.V.R v. Inc., 125 P.3d 1160 (Nev. 2006).
Waddell v. L.V.R v. Inc., 125 P.3d 1160 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 6× “3 Since Nevada, like Oregon, adopted Uniform Commercial Code § 2-608 verbatim, we conclude that this test applies to NRS 104.2608. Accordingly, we adopt the Supreme Court of Oregon’s two-part test for determining whether a nonconformity substantially affects the good’s value to…”
Newmar Corp. v. McCrary, 309 P.3d 1021 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 5× “*641 Revoking acceptance from Newmar Newmar argues that, under Nevada’s applicable UCC provision, NRS 104.2608, a buyer can only revoke acceptance from a seller, and while it manufactured the motor home, it was not a seller of the motor home.”
Living Ecology, Inc. v. Bosch Packaging Tech., Inc. (D. Nev. 2022).
“16 NRS 104.2608 The court finds that LEI’s alleged revocation was invalid as a matter of law since it 17 was not based on a “reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured.”
Living Ecology, Inc. v. Bosch Packaging Tech., Inc. (D. Nev. 2022).
“16 NRS 104.2608 The court finds that LEI’s alleged revocation was invalid as a matter of law since it 17 was not based on a “reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2608(1) — 1 case
Waddell v. L.V.R v. Inc., 125 P.3d 1160 (Nev. 2006).
“3 Since Nevada, like Oregon, adopted Uniform Commercial Code § 2-608 verbatim, we conclude that this test applies to NRS 104.2608. Accordingly, we adopt the Supreme Court of Oregon’s two-part test for determining whether a nonconformity substantially affects the good’s value to…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2608(1)(a) — 1 case
Newmar Corp. v. McCrary, 309 P.3d 1021 (Nev. 2013).
“*641 Revoking acceptance from Newmar Newmar argues that, under Nevada’s applicable UCC provision, NRS 104.2608, a buyer can only revoke acceptance from a seller, and while it manufactured the motor home, it was not a seller of the motor home.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2608(2) — 3 cases
Waddell v. L.V.R v. Inc., 125 P.3d 1160 (Nev. 2006).
“3 Since Nevada, like Oregon, adopted Uniform Commercial Code § 2-608 verbatim, we conclude that this test applies to NRS 104.2608. Accordingly, we adopt the Supreme Court of Oregon’s two-part test for determining whether a nonconformity substantially affects the good’s value to…”
Newmar Corp. v. McCrary, 309 P.3d 1021 (Nev. 2013).
“*641 Revoking acceptance from Newmar Newmar argues that, under Nevada’s applicable UCC provision, NRS 104.2608, a buyer can only revoke acceptance from a seller, and while it manufactured the motor home, it was not a seller of the motor home.”
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.