Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 402 — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE — SALES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 402.608 (2026)

Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
402.608402.608 Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part.
402.608(1)(1) The buyer may revoke the buyer’s acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to the buyer if the buyer has accepted it:
402.608(1)(a)(a) On the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
402.608(1)(b)(b) Without discovery of such nonconformity if the buyer’s acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller’s assurances.
402.608(2)(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.
402.608(3)(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.
402.608 HistoryHistory: 1991 a. 316.
402.608 AnnotationSub. (2) provides that a revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers a nonconformity, and s. 402.602 (2) (b) requires a buyer who rejects goods to hold the goods for a sufficient time for the seller to remove them. A truck purchaser who used the vehicle for 18 months, then transferred it back to the dealer and sought relief ten months after the transfer did not reject the vehicle in a timely manner or hold it as required and was not entitled to relief. Smyser v. Western Star Trucks Corp., 2001 WI App 180, 247 Wis. 2d 281, 634 N.W.2d 134, 00-2482.
402.608 AnnotationWhen the trial court found that the plaintiff’s employees were told by the defendant that a part of a system purchased from the defendant would not work and there was no evidence presented at trial as to any further discussion of additional work, the plaintiff could not reasonably assume that the nonconformity would be cured, making revocation under subs. (1) (a) and (2) unavailable. Viking Packaging Technologies, Inc. v. Vassallo Foods, Inc., 2011 WI App 133, 337 Wis. 2d 125, 804 N.W.2d 507, 10-2067.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Prods., 2005 WI 98 (Wis. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Prods., 2005 WI 98 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 8× “Wis. Stat. § 402.608 . It is entirely plausible that in some cases, a buyer may not in fact discover the nonconformity, or legally be required to discover the nonconformity, until after the seller has obtained a judgment in a suit for the price of the goods.”
Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., 265 N.W.2d 513 (Wis. 1978). · cites it 4× “2-608 of the UCC (sec. 402.608, Stats.). Moore v. Howard Pontiac-American, Inc.”
Smyser v. W. Star Trucks Corp., 2001 WI App 180 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “He contends that his delivery of the vehicle and the title to Racine Truck constituted a revocation of his acceptance of the vehicle pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 402.608 . 8 We reject this argument for essentially the same reasons we have rejected Smyser's Lemon Law claim.”
Malone v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 526 N.W.2d 841 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “" Allen Twillie, a consumer affairs specialist prior to June of 1993, stated in an affidavit that "[t]he spoiler which is the subject of this litigation was not owned, manufactured, sold, distributed or supplied by Nissan." On July 23,1992, Malone filed a complaint against…”
Lightcap v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 466 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. 1991). · cites it 10× “On March 31, 1988, Lightcap wrote to Steenberg, revoking her acceptance of the mobile home, pursuant to sec. 402.608, Stats., and demanding the purchase price of the mobile home plus costs.”
Dieter v. Chrysler Corp., 2000 WI 45 (Wis. 2000). · cites it 2× “015 ; 2) violation of Wis. Stat. § 402.608 ; 3) relief under Wis.”
Trinkle v. Schumacher Co., 301 N.W.2d 255 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “§2-608 (identical to sec. 402.608, Stats.) states that the policy behind subsection (2) is “seeking substantial justice in regard to the condition of the goods restored to the seller.”
Herzberg v. Ford Motor Co., 2001 WI App 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “607(3) (governing acceptance of a tender), § 402.608 ("Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part"), and § 402.”
Badger Produce Co. v. Prelude Foods Int'l, Inc., 387 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Section 402.608, Stats., provides in part: (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: (b) Without discovery of such nonconformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced…”
Goudy v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 2010 WI App 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “1994) (claim under Wis. Stat. § 402.608 properly dismissed where there is no evidence that a warranted product is nonconforming); Wis.”
Kiss v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2001 WI App 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 402.608 (U.C.C. revocation provision), WlS.”
Chmill v. Friendly Ford-Mercury of Janesville, Inc., 424 N.W.2d 747 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “2-608(1) (sec. 402.608(1), Stats.) permits a buyer to revoke his acceptance of a commercial unit whose "nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 402.608(1) — 4 cases
Chmill v. Friendly Ford-Mercury of Janesville, Inc., 424 N.W.2d 747 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “2-608(1) (sec. 402.608(1), Stats.) permits a buyer to revoke his acceptance of a commercial unit whose "nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him.”
Smyser v. W. Star Trucks Corp., 2001 WI App 180 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “He contends that his delivery of the vehicle and the title to Racine Truck constituted a revocation of his acceptance of the vehicle pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 402.608 . 8 We reject this argument for essentially the same reasons we have rejected Smyser's Lemon Law claim.”
Nick Balsimo v. Venture One Stop, Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
Hepper v. Theoharis (E.D. Wis. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 402.608(2) — 3 cases
Smyser v. W. Star Trucks Corp., 2001 WI App 180 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “He contends that his delivery of the vehicle and the title to Racine Truck constituted a revocation of his acceptance of the vehicle pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 402.608 . 8 We reject this argument for essentially the same reasons we have rejected Smyser's Lemon Law claim.”
Trinkle v. Schumacher Co., 301 N.W.2d 255 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “§2-608 (identical to sec. 402.608, Stats.) states that the policy behind subsection (2) is “seeking substantial justice in regard to the condition of the goods restored to the seller.”
Herzberg v. Ford Motor Co., 2001 WI App 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “607(3) (governing acceptance of a tender), § 402.608 ("Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part"), and § 402.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.608(3) — 1 case
Smyser v. W. Star Trucks Corp., 2001 WI App 180 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “He contends that his delivery of the vehicle and the title to Racine Truck constituted a revocation of his acceptance of the vehicle pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 402.608 . 8 We reject this argument for essentially the same reasons we have rejected Smyser's Lemon Law claim.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.608(l)(a) — 1 case
Viking Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Vassallo Foods, Inc., 2011 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).
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.