Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 402.607 (2026)
Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
402.607402.607 Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over.
402.607(2)(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 chapter for nonconformity.
402.607(3)(a)(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
402.607(3)(b)(b) If the claim is one for infringement or the like (s. 402.312 (3)) and the buyer is sued as a result of such a breach the buyer must so notify the seller within a reasonable time after the buyer receives notice of the litigation or be barred from any remedy over for liability established by the litigation.
402.607(4)(4) The burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect to the goods accepted.
402.607(5)(5) Where the buyer is sued for breach of a warranty or other obligation for which the buyer’s seller is answerable over:
402.607(5)(a)(a) The buyer may give the buyer’s 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 the seller’s buyer by any determination of fact common to the 2 litigations, then unless the seller after seasonable receipt of the notice does come in and defend, the seller is so bound.
402.607(5)(b)(b) If the claim is one for infringement or the like (s. 402.312 (3)) the original seller may demand in writing that his or her buyer turn over control of the litigation to the original seller including settlement or else be barred from any remedy over and if the original 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.
402.607(6)(6) Subsections (3), (4) and (5) apply to any obligation of the buyer to hold the seller harmless against infringement or the like (s. 402.312 (3)).
402.607 AnnotationUnder the facts of the case, a two-month delay in giving notice was not unreasonable. Paulson v. Olson Implement Co., 107 Wis. 2d 510, 319 N.W.2d 855 (1982).
402.607 AnnotationOrdinarily, what constitutes a reasonable time is a question of fact for a jury. However, a delay may be for such a long period that as a matter of law the court must hold that the notice was not given within a reasonable time. Absent evidence of circumstances excusing or justifying the delay, ten months is not a reasonable time to delay giving notice as a matter of law. Wilson v. Tuxen, 2008 WI App 94, 312 Wis. 2d 705, 754 N.W.2d 220, 07-1964.
402.607 AnnotationUnder sub. (2), once a buyer accepts a good, the buyer is precluded from rejecting that good. In this case, the buyer accepted the recreational vehicle (“RV”) under s. 402.606 (1) (a) when, after inspecting the RV and signifying to the seller that the RV was conforming, the buyer took exclusive possession of the RV and left the seller’s lot. At that moment, the purchase contract was fully performed, and the buyer was precluded from rejecting the RV. Balsimo v. Venture One Stop, Inc., 2024 WI App 58, 414 Wis. 2d 27, 13 N.W.3d 228, 22-1715.
402.607 AnnotationSub. (3) (a) requires pre-suit notice. One of the purposes of the notice requirement is to enable the seller to take corrective action and avoid litigation. Thus, service of a summons and complaint cannot function as the notice required by sub. (3) (a). Brame v. General Motors LLC, 535 F. Supp. 3d 832 (2021).
402.607 AnnotationA buyer must give a seller notice of an alleged breach even if the seller would not have cured the breach after receiving the notice. Brame v. General Motors LLC, 535 F. Supp. 3d 832 (2021).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Wilson v. Tuxen, 2008 WI App 94 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
Wilson v. Tuxen, 2008 WI App 94 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “195 implied warranty claim were barred because the Wilsons had not given notice of breach within a reasonable time as required under Wis. Stat. § 402.607 . Tuxen submitted an affidavit stating he first received notice of a problem with the cows in April 2003, approximately ten…”
Blitz v. Monsanto Co., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (W.D. Wis. 2018). “" Wis. Stat. § 402.607 (3)(a). Wisconsin's UCC provides the following definition of "notice": (1) Subject to sub.”
Rich Prods. Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “See, Wis.Stat. § 402.607(3)(a). RPC notified Kemutee of the problem eight days after discovering the same, which is certainly reasonable.”
Carl v. Spickler Enter., Ltd., 478 N.W.2d 48 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “2d 855 (1982), the supreme court considered what constitutes sufficient notice under sec. 402.607, Stats., requiring a buyer to give notice of breach to a seller.”
Badger Produce Co. v. Prelude Foods Int'l, Inc., 387 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “Because Badger contends that Prelude accepted the goods, its arguments regarding notice concern sec. 402.607(3)(a), Stats. Notice of rejection is governed by sec.”
Paulson v. Olson Implement Co., Inc., 319 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. 1982). “” The action was dismissed against Olson Implement because the plaintiffs’ pleading did not allege having given notice within sec. 402.607, Stats., and because the trial court determined “as a matter of law a two year delay in giving notice would be unreasonable.”
Kelsey Axle & Brake Div. v. Presco Plastics, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 239 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). “First, the defendant argues, and we agree, that the plaintiff did not meet the notice requirement of the Wisconsin Commercial Code, which provides as follows ( Wis. Stat. Ann. §402.607 (3)(a) (1964)): “The buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have…”
Herzberg v. Ford Motor Co., 2001 WI App 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “515 ("Preserving evidence of goods in dispute"), § 402.607(3) (governing acceptance of a tender), § 402.”
Cota v. Ralph Lauren Corp. (E.D. Wis. 2022). “Under Wis. Stat. § 402.607 (3)(a), where a tender has been accepted, “[t]he buyer must within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of the breach or be barred from any remedy.”
White v. Schwans Consum. Brands Inc (E.D. Wis. 2024). “8 at 19 (citing Wis. Stat. § 402.607 (3)(a).) Wisconsin law provides that a buyer must notify the seller of a nonconforming good within a reasonable time of discovering the breach of warranty, “or be barred from any remedy.”
JER Creative Food Concepts, Inc. v. Create a Pack Foods, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2024). “at 6 (citing Wis. Stat. §§ 402.607 (1) and 402.709(1)(a)).”
Brame v. Gen. Motors LLC (E.D. Wis. 2021). “” Wis. Stat. § 402.607 (3)(a). The Wisconsin Supreme Court has stated that, under this provision, the buyer must provide reasonable notice of the alleged breach.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.607(2) — 1 case
Nick Balsimo v. Venture One Stop, Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 402.607(3) — 1 case
Herzberg v. Ford Motor Co., 2001 WI App 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “515 ("Preserving evidence of goods in dispute"), § 402.607(3) (governing acceptance of a tender), § 402.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.607(3)(a) — 7 cases
Blitz v. Monsanto Co., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (W.D. Wis. 2018). “" Wis. Stat. § 402.607 (3)(a). Wisconsin's UCC provides the following definition of "notice": (1) Subject to sub.”
Rich Prods. Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “See, Wis.Stat. § 402.607(3)(a). RPC notified Kemutee of the problem eight days after discovering the same, which is certainly reasonable.”
Badger Produce Co. v. Prelude Foods Int'l, Inc., 387 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “Because Badger contends that Prelude accepted the goods, its arguments regarding notice concern sec. 402.607(3)(a), Stats. Notice of rejection is governed by sec.”
Wilson v. Tuxen, 2008 WI App 94 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “195 implied warranty claim were barred because the Wilsons had not given notice of breach within a reasonable time as required under Wis. Stat. § 402.607 . Tuxen submitted an affidavit stating he first received notice of a problem with the cows in April 2003, approximately ten…”
Cota v. Ralph Lauren Corp. (E.D. Wis. 2022). “Under Wis. Stat. § 402.607 (3)(a), where a tender has been accepted, “[t]he buyer must within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of the breach or be barred from any remedy.”
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.