AMI 2518 Issues—Revocation of Acceptance
Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 2518
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
December 2023 Update
Chapter 25. UCC Sales Contracts
AMI 2518 Issues—Revocation of Acceptance
(Buyer) contends that [he] [she] [it]was entitled to revoke acceptance of (the goods) [even though (the goods) were accepted by (him) (her)(it)], and has the burden of proving each of the following six essential propositions:
First, that the (the goods) failed to conform to the contract;
Second, that the non-conformity substantially impaired the value of (the goods) to (buyer);
Third, that the acceptance of (the goods) by (buyer) was:
[on the reasonable assumption that the non-conformity would be cured;]
[reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance, or by the assurances of (seller);]
Fourth, that the revocation of acceptance was within a reasonable time after (buyer) discovered, or should have discovered, the non-conformity;
Fifth, that (buyer) notified (seller) of [his][her][its] revocation of acceptance; and
Sixth, that there has been no substantial change in the condition of (the goods) not caused by their own defect(s).
NOTE ON USE
Use the first bracketed portion of the first paragraph if rejection is also an issue.
The alternatives within the third proposition are set off by brackets because they are mutually exclusive. Use the first bracketed sentence if the buyer accepted the goods knowing of the non-conformity. Use the second bracketed sentence if the non-conformity was not discovered by the buyer prior to acceptance.
COMMENT
This instruction is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-608. Whether goods are non-conforming and whether notice of revocation of acceptance was given within a reasonable time are questions of fact. O'Neal Ford, Inc. v. Earley, 13 Ark. App. 189, 681 S.W.2d 414 (1985).
Under Article 2 of the UCC, if goods do not conform to the contract, a buyer may use the self-help remedies of rejection (Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-602) and revocation of acceptance (Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-608). The drafters of the Code preferred using the words rejection and revocation of acceptance rather than “rescission” to avoid the confusing body of law which had arisen throughout the country in rescission cases. 1 White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, § 8-1 (3rd ed. 1988).
Arkansas apparently follows a minority rule in allowing a right to cure after a revocation of acceptance. See Rhode v. Kremer, 280 Ark. 136, 655 S.W.2d 410 (1983), and 1 White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 8-4, 8-5 (3rd ed. 1988).
© 2023 Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions-Civil
| End of Document |