Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-608 (2026)
Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part
✓ current as of May 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.
Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (2-608).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1972–2020 · leading case: Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-608 (2). Therefore, the only hope McKinnon had to sustain its revocation defense was a finding that the defects in the steel caused the bridge to collapse.”
Humphreys v. Selvey, 154 S.W.3d 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Within a reasonable time of discovery of nonconformity, plaintiff, by letter delivered via certified mail, dated October 31, 2001, attempted to communicate revocation of his acceptance of the dispensers pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-2-608. By facsimile on November 16, 2001, plaintiff…”
Patton v. McHone, 822 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “The defects caused the car to fail within days of the purchase, and the Pattons requested rescission of the contract immediately.”
Haverlah v. Memphis Aviation, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-608 (1979) for all practical effect replaces the old equitable doctrine of rescission and provides: Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part.”
Audio Visual Artistry v. Stephen Tanzer, 403 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “1991) (citing, inter alia, Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-608). In light of the foregoing principles, in this case, the trial court could have found that Mr.”
Watts v. Mercedes-benz USA, LLC, 254 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Watts voluntarily dismissed his request for the remedy of monetary damages based on breach of express warranty, leaving only his request for the remedy of revocation of acceptance pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-608 and the Magnuson-Moss Act.”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Cliff Pettit Motors, Inc., 513 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. 1974). “They can be distinguished first by the fact that Howard Pontiac-American is a Uniform Commerical Code case brought specifically pursuant to a statute, T.C.A. § 47-2-608. The instant case, however, is a case of multiple conversions brought pursuant to common law rules of law.”
Henry v. Don Wood Volkswagen, Inc., 526 S.W.2d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974). “Plaintiff filed suit in the Chancery Court of Hamilton County seeking to revoke acceptance of the automobile under T.C.A. § 47-2-608 and recover the purchase price and incidental damages.”
Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 669 S.W.2d 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “In the prior action the facts necessary to establish the right to relief required that the Plaintiff show the defects of the vehicle were so extensive as to substantially impair its value to him, (T.C.A. 47-2-608), while breach of warranty entitled one to recover for defects of…”
Moore v. Howard Pontiac-Am., Inc., 492 S.W.2d 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972). “The relief sought and granted, was that of rescission under T.C.A. 47-2-608, which provides: “(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (a) on the reasonable assumption…”
Seaton v. Lawson Chevrolet-Mazda, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 137 (Tenn. 1991). “Rescission under the UCC is available pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-2-608, which provides: Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part.”
Bob Travis d/b/a Travis Co. v. Nathan Ferguson d/b/a Northside Auto Sales (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “Because the rescission and warranty of merchantability statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-2-608 and 47-2-314 require privity of contract between the buyer and the seller, and because the automobile auction statute, Tenn.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-608(1) — 1 case
Patton v. McHone, 822 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “The defects caused the car to fail within days of the purchase, and the Pattons requested rescission of the contract immediately.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-608(1)(a) — 1 case
Edward Gray v. Johnson Mobile Homes (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-608(1)(b) — 1 case
Patton v. McHone, 822 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “The defects caused the car to fail within days of the purchase, and the Pattons requested rescission of the contract immediately.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-608(2) — 2 cases
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-608 (2). Therefore, the only hope McKinnon had to sustain its revocation defense was a finding that the defects in the steel caused the bridge to collapse.”
Patton v. McHone, 822 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “The defects caused the car to fail within days of the purchase, and the Pattons requested rescission of the contract immediately.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-608(a) — 1 case
Audio Visual Artistry v. Stephen Tanzer, 403 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “1991) (citing, inter alia, Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-608). In light of the foregoing principles, in this case, the trial court could have found that Mr.”
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.