Sales and Leases | 152
all other things being equal, the more severe the defect, the longer the buyer has to discover it and revoke her acceptance. [ See Eggl v. Letvin Equip. Co. , 632 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 2001); 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2-608:2, Westlaw (database updated June 2021).] Example : A food distributor contracted to buy powdered milk from a manufacturer. In June of year one, the manufacturer began sending the shipments, which the distributor accepted. In September of year one, news reports indicated that all of the powdered milk could be contaminated with melamine. The distributor immediately sought assurances that the milk was safe, and the manufacturer provided its own test results showing that the milk was safe. Even so, the distributor sought to test the milk for itself. Yet despite reasonable efforts, the distributor could not find a testing facility with the appropriate licensing until March of year two. These independent tests indicated that all shipments had dangerous melamine levels. Shortly after, the distributor revoked acceptance. Here, the distributor’s delay in discovering the melamine was reasonable, considering the problems finding a properly licensed testing facility. Thus, the distributor revoked acceptance within a reasonable time. [ Adapted from Absolute Trading Corp. v. Bariven S.A. , 503 Fed.Appx. 694 (11th Cir. 2013).] Compare : A pasta distributor contracted to buy a packaging system from a manufacturer. In April, before accepting the system, the distributor went to the manufacturer’s plant to observe the system in action. Though the system did not work properly then, in June, the distributor accepted delivery on the manufacturer’s assurances that the system was working better. The manufacturer’s technician worked with the distributor’s employees for days to install the system, but even then, it did not work properly. In July, the technician returned and tried to fix the machine. Here, the technician stated flatly that the system would not work with the distributor’s product. Even so, it was not until December that the distributor sought to revoke acceptance. Here, revocation did not come within a reasonable time. The distributor should have known, no later than July, that it could not use the system. Yet it inexplicably waited until December to seek to revoke acceptance. [ See Viking Packaging Technologies, Inc. v. Vassallo Foods, Inc. , 804 N.W.2d 507 (Wisc. Ct. App. 2011).]
b. Revocation before Substantial Change in the Goods Not Attributable to a Defect For a buyer to revoke acceptance, she must do so before any substantial change in the goods’ condition not caused by a defect. This rule’s purpose is to prevent minor changes from barring a buyer’s revocation while protecting the seller from having to take back goods that are substantially less valuable or useful than at the time of delivery. Thus, for
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker