Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 2-608

Current through Laws 2024, c. 378.

Section 2-608 - Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or 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

(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.

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-608

Laws 1961, p. 93, § 2-608.

Oklahoma Code Comment

(1) This is an elaboration upon paragraph (2) of Section 2- 607 , above. See comments there

This section permits revocation in part, provided that each part is a lot or commercial units. Oklahoma has previously held that revocation must be in toto: one could not affirm in part and repudiate in part, Dunlap v. Orwig, 199 Okl. 378, 186 P.2d 659 (1947), except in cases of delivery in installments. Valley Refining Co. v. Rock Island Refining Co., 167 Okl. 266, 29 P.2d 117 (1934).

Note that revocation is permitted only when the non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer. This is an application of the doctrine of substantial performance, which has been previously applied in Oklahoma in building contracts, Raitman v. McCune, 167 Okl. 511, 30 P.2d 878 (1934), but which has not previously been involved in any sales case in Oklahoma.

(2) Previous Oklahoma law is in accord with the statement that revocation must be within a reasonable time. See Barber Medicine Co. v. Bradley, 48 Okl. 82, 150 P. 127 (1915); Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Holiday, 32 Okl. 823, 124 P. 35 (1912). The rest of the paragraph is new law with no previous comparable Oklahoma decisions.

(3) This is a very important change in the law in most jurisdictions. Under the common law, and the Uniform Sales Act (not adopted in Oklahoma), a "revocation" constituted an election of remedies which precluded the purchaser from seeking damages. Under this section, revocation does not preclude an action for damages for breach of warranty or breach of contract. Previous Oklahoma law is in accord with the common law view that rescission bars recovery for damages and is therefore changed. In Balch v. Newberry, 208 Okl. 46, 253 P.2d 153, 35 A.L.R.2d 1267 (1953) the purchaser of a dog brought an action to rescind the contract and for damages for breach of contract. The court held that the buyer could not both rescind and recover damages, except for necessary expenses in taking care of the dog. But in Coyle v. Baum, 3 Okl. 695, 41 P. 389 (1895), the court held that the return of an unused portion of oats, which had killed several of plaintiff's horses, was not a rescission of the used portion which had caused the damages, and therefore was not an election of remedy.