Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part
Source:
Section 72.6080 — Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors072.html
.
Notes of Decisions
A buyer may revoke acceptance on account of material misrepresentation by the seller. Melms v. Mitchell, 266 Or 208, 512 P2d 1336 (1973)
A buyer seeking cancellation on the grounds of misrepresentation must return what he has received under the contract. Melms v. Mitchell, 266 Or 208, 512 P2d 1336 (1973)
A seller does not have an unlimited amount of time to cure the nonconformity. Jorgensen v. Pressnall, 274 Or 285, 545 P2d 1382 (1976)
The nonconformity must substantially impair the value of the goods to the purchaser. Jorgensen v. Pressnall, 274 Or 285, 545 P2d 1382 (1976)
Revocation of acceptance is permissible not only where there is complete impairment, but also where the impairment is substantial but not complete. Jorgensen v. Pressnall, 274 Or 285, 545 P2d 1382 (1976)
Because the buyer rightfully revoked acceptance under this section due to the unfitness of the goods, the buyer had no further obligation as to the returned goods. Valley Iron and Steel Co. v. Thorin, 278 Or 103, 562 P2d 1212 (1977)
Where automobile buyer bought automobile from dealer, and there was no evidence that dealer was acting as manufacturer’s agent in sale, buyer could not revoke acceptance as to manufacturer. Clark v. Ford Motor Co., 46 Or App 521, 612 P2d 316 (1980)
Where buyer selected automobile in dealer’s showroom and contract was for sale of particular automobile, buyer could not revoke his acceptance as to dealer on ground of “nonconformity.” Clark v. Ford Motor Co.,, 46 Or App 521, 612 P2d 316 (1980)
That hay baler did not comply with express warranty constituted non-conformity under this section and evidence was sufficient to show that revocation was proper and timely. Miller v. Hubbard-Wray Co., 52 Or App 897, 630 P2d 880 (1981), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by 53 Or App 531, 633 P2d 1 (1981)
Revocation of acceptance is combination of buyer’s refusal to keep nonconforming goods accepted coupled with notification thereof to seller. Custom Harv. Oregon v. Smith Truck & Tractor, 75 Or App 274, 706 P2d 186 (1985)
Under ORS 72.7190, if limited and exclusive remedy of repair and replacement fails because seller was unwilling or unable to repair and buyer thus loses substantial benefit of bargain, then remedy has failed of essential purpose and other remedies are restored including revocation of acceptance under this section. Young v. Hessel Tractor & Equipment Co., 99 Or App 262, 782 P2d 164 (1989), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by C.I.T. Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Young, 99 Or App 270, 782 P2d 169 (1989)
Where there are issues of fact as to requirements of nonconformity and substantial impairment of value which plaintiff must prove to prevail in rescission claim, trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Claxton v. Boothe, 101 Or App 416, 790 P2d 1201 (1990), Sup Ct review denied