Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.475 (2026)

Buyer’s statement of revocation of offer; criteria

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      105.475 Buyer’s statement of revocation of offer; criteria. (1) If a seller issues a seller’s property disclosure statement and a buyer has not then delivered to the seller a written statement waiving the buyer’s right to revoke the buyer’s offer, the buyer shall have five business days after delivery of the seller’s property disclosure statement to revoke the buyer’s offer by delivering to the seller a separate signed written statement of revocation disapproving the seller’s disclosure.

      (2) If a buyer fails to timely deliver to a seller a written statement revoking the buyer’s offer, the buyer’s right to revoke the buyer’s offer expires.

      (3) If a buyer closes the transaction, the buyer’s right to revoke based on ORS 105.462 to 105.490, 696.301 and 696.870 is terminated.

      (4) If the seller fails or refuses to provide a seller’s property disclosure statement as required under this section, the buyer shall have a right of revocation until the right is terminated pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.

      (5) If the buyer revokes the offer pursuant to this section, notwithstanding ORS 696.581, the buyer is entitled to immediate return of all deposits and other considerations delivered to any party or escrow agent with respect to the buyer’s offer, and the buyer’s offer is void.

      (6) When the deposits and other considerations have been returned to the buyer, upon the buyer’s signed, written release and indemnification of the holders of the deposits and other considerations, the holders are released from all liability for the deposits and other considerations.

      (7) Any seller’s property disclosure statement issued by the seller is part of and incorporated into the offer and the acceptance. [1993 c.547 §§2,3; 2003 c.328 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2005–2016 · leading case: Bishop v. Waters, 380 P.3d 1114 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bishop v. Waters, 380 P.3d 1114 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “In December 2012, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, alleging common-law rescission, “rescission of contract pursuant to ORS 105.475,” fraud, and financial abuse of a vulnerable person.”
Patterson v. Amundson, 119 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “At that time, defendant had not provided plaintiffs with the disclosure form required by ORS 105.475. 2 During their 1995 tenancy, plaintiffs told defendant of a number of problems that required significant repair, including a leak in the roof, problems with Louisiana-Pacific…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.475(3) — 1 case
Bishop v. Waters, 380 P.3d 1114 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “In December 2012, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, alleging common-law rescission, “rescission of contract pursuant to ORS 105.475,” fraud, and financial abuse of a vulnerable person.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.475(4) — 1 case
Bishop v. Waters, 380 P.3d 1114 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “In December 2012, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, alleging common-law rescission, “rescission of contract pursuant to ORS 105.475,” fraud, and financial abuse of a vulnerable person.”
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.