Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc.
155 N.E.3d 406
Ill.2020Background:
- In April 2014 Kimberly Accettura and Adam Wozniak bought a new 2014 Palomino trailer for about $26,000 and took possession late April.
- In June they discovered a leak at the emergency exit window; Vacationland repaired it at no charge.
- In July, while in Michigan, the RV leaked heavily during a rainstorm causing interior and electrical damage; plaintiffs returned it to Vacationland on July 14.
- Vacationland could not complete the repair and said it would send the RV to the manufacturer but gave no timetable; plaintiffs called the manufacturer and were referred back to Vacationland.
- Plaintiffs verbally revoked acceptance on August 2 before the manufacturer picked up the RV (pickup ~Aug 4; return ~Sept 23); plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed revocation in writing Sept 28.
- Plaintiffs sued (Oct 29, 2014) under Magnuson-Moss and UCC theories; the trial court and appellate court granted summary judgment for Vacationland, holding plaintiffs failed to give a reasonable opportunity to cure; the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed only the UCC revocation claim (§ 2-608(1)(b)).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCC §2-608(1)(b) requires the buyer to give seller a reasonable opportunity to cure before revoking acceptance | §2-608(1)(b) contains no cure requirement; it applies when buyer accepted without discovering the defect and need not give seller chance to repair | Buyer must give seller reasonable time to cure; prior attempts to repair show plaintiffs should have waited | Court: §2-608(1)(b) does not require opportunity to cure before revocation; reversed and remanded |
| Whether plaintiffs’ prior submission for repair waived immediate revocation | Prior repair offer was not an open-ended consent to an unreasonable cure delay; plaintiffs may revoke if cure is unreasonably delayed | By electing repair they were required to allow a reasonable repair period before revoking | Court: Considering repair does not obligate buyer to accept an unreasonable or open-ended cure timeline; revocation still permissible under (1)(b) |
| Whether §2-608(3) incorporates seller’s cure rights under §2-508 | Revocation’s "rights and duties" do not import §2-508 cure rights; revocation differs from rejection | §2-608(3) makes revocation analogous to rejection, so §2-508 cure right applies | Court: §2-608(3) does not import §2-508; rejection and revocation are distinct; seller loses cure right on revocation |
| Whether UCC comments or out-of-state authorities require cure before revocation | Comments discuss notice and timeliness but do not impose a cure requirement; majority authority supports no cure right under (1)(b) | Committee comments and some jurisdictions suggest revocation is normally after attempts to adjust and favor cure rights | Court: Comments do not create a cure requirement; majority of considered authorities support buyer’s position under (1)(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Belfour v. Schaumburg Auto, 306 Ill. App. 3d 234 (Ill. App. 1999) (discussed §2-608(a) and adjustment before revocation; distinguishable)
- Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc., 593 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (seller loses cure right after buyer revokes under §2-608(1)(b))
- Gappelberg v. Landrum, 666 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. 1984) (only §2-608(a) contemplates cure; §2-608(b) does not)
- Johannsen v. Minnesota Valley Ford Tractor Co., 304 N.W.2d 654 (Minn. 1981) (seller has no right to cure defects that substantially impair value after acceptance)
- Werner v. Montana, 378 A.2d 1130 (N.H. 1977) (distinguishes cure opportunity in (a) from lack of cure requirement in (b))