Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc.
112 N.E.3d 1054
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In April 2014 Accettura and Wozniak bought a new 2014 Palomino RV from Vacationland for ~$26,000 and took possession April 25, 2014.
- June 2014: plaintiffs discovered a leak at the emergency-exit window; Vacationland repaired it at no charge.
- July 2014: a separate leak at the dinette caused interior water damage and electrical failure; plaintiffs brought the RV to Vacationland on July 14 and were told the manufacturer must repair it and timing was uncertain.
- Plaintiffs verbally revoked acceptance sometime before August 2, 2014; manufacturer repaired the RV from ~Aug 4 to Sept 23, 2014; plaintiffs’ counsel sent a revocation letter Sept 28, 2014.
- Plaintiffs filed suit alleging revocation of acceptance, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and sought the purchase price under the UCC and Magnuson‑Moss; Vacationland moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs failed to give a reasonable opportunity to cure.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant; on appeal the court affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed as a matter of law to provide a reasonable opportunity to cure and thus could not revoke acceptance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine fact dispute exists about a "reasonable opportunity to cure" | Revocation ~2 weeks after repair request was reasonable under circumstances | Plaintiffs revoked too soon; no reasonable time to cure was given | No genuine issue; as a matter of law plaintiffs failed to provide reasonable opportunity to cure |
| Whether standards in Illinois New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act can define "reasonable" outside that Act | Act's prescriptive standards should not be imported to Magnuson‑Moss/UCC claims | Act is analogous and its presumption provisions inform what is reasonable | Court may analogize to the Act; use of §3(b) was appropriate |
| Whether seller must replace vehicle under UCC §2‑508(2) after buyer rejects nonconforming tender | Seller was required to replace under §2‑508(2) | §2‑508(2) applies when seller reasonably believed tender acceptable; replacement not required here because vehicle was repairable | Belfour (total loss) distinguishable; no §2‑508(2) replacement obligation when vehicle repairable |
| Whether an opportunity to cure is required before revocation under UCC §2‑608(1)(b) | §2‑608(1)(b) (revocation for undiscovered nonconformity induced by seller’s assurances) does not require an opportunity to cure | UCC and Illinois precedent require seller a reasonable time to cure before revocation | Opportunity to cure is required under §2‑608(1)(b); plaintiffs revoked prematurely and revocation ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 222 Ill. 2d 75 (Illinois Supreme Court) (statutory interpretation and use of related statutes by analogy)
- Carney v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2016 IL 118984 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404 (Illinois Supreme Court) (summary judgment as drastic remedy)
- Belfour v. Schaumburg, 306 Ill. App. 3d 234 (Ill. App. Ct.) (seller’s offer to cure and revocation; distinguishable when vehicle is a total loss)
- Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 226 Ill. 2d 307 (Illinois Supreme Court) (revocation of acceptance characterized as equitable relief)
- Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307 (Illinois Supreme Court) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998 (Illinois Supreme Court) (plaintiff must present factual basis at summary judgment)