ORS 72.6080¹
Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part

(1) The buyer may revoke acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to the buyer if the buyer 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 the 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 the buyer had rejected them. [1961 c.726 §72.6080 (Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part)]

Notes of Decisions

A buyer may revoke acceptance on account of ma­te­ri­al misrepresenta­tion by the seller. Melms v. Mitchell, 266 Or 208, 512 P2d 1336 (1973)

A buyer seeking cancella­tion on the grounds of misrepresenta­tion must return what he has received under the contract. Melms v. Mitchell, 266 Or 208, 512 P2d 1336 (1973)

A seller does not have an unlimited amount of time to cure the nonconformity. Jorgensen v. Pressnall, 274 Or 285, 545 P2d 1382 (1976)

The nonconformity must substantially impair the value of the goods to the purchaser. Jorgensen v. Pressnall, 274 Or 285, 545 P2d 1382 (1976)

Revoca­tion of acceptance is permissible not only where there is complete impair­ment, but also where the impair­ment is substantial but not complete. Jorgensen v. Pressnall, 274 Or 285, 545 P2d 1382 (1976)

Because the buyer rightfully revoked acceptance under this sec­tion due to the unfitness of the goods, the buyer had no further obliga­tion as to the returned goods. Valley Iron and Steel Co. v. Thorin, 278 Or 103, 562 P2d 1212 (1977)

Where automobile buyer bought automobile from dealer, and there was no evidence that dealer was acting as manufacturer's agent in sale, buyer could not revoke acceptance as to manufacturer. Clark v. Ford Motor Co., 46 Or App 521, 612 P2d 316 (1980)

Where buyer selected automobile in dealer's showroom and contract was for sale of particular automobile, buyer could not revoke his acceptance as to dealer on ground of "nonconformity." Clark v. Ford Motor Co., 46 Or App 521, 612 P2d 316 (1980)

That hay baler did not comply with express warranty constituted non-conformity under this sec­tion and evidence was sufficient to show that revoca­tion was proper and timely. Miller v. Hubbard-Wray Co., 52 Or App 897, 630 P2d 880 (1981), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by 53 Or App 531, 633 P2d 1 (1981)

Revoca­tion of acceptance is combina­tion of buyer's refusal to keep nonconforming goods accepted coupled with notifica­tion thereof to seller. Custom Harv. Oregon v. Smith Truck & Tractor, 75 Or App 274, 706 P2d 186 (1985)

Under ORS 72.7190 (Contractual modification or limitation of remedy), if limited and exclusive remedy of repair and replace­ment fails because seller was unwilling or unable to repair and buyer thus loses substantial benefit of bargain, then remedy has failed of essential purpose and other remedies are restored including revoca­tion of acceptance under this sec­tion. Young v. Hessel Tractor & Equip­ment Co., 99 Or App 262, 782 P2d 164 (1989), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by C.I.T. Group/Equip­ment Financing, Inc. v. Young, 99 Or App 270, 782 P2d 169 (1989)

Where there are issues of fact as to require­ments of nonconformity and substantial impair­ment of value which plaintiff must prove to prevail in rescission claim, trial court erred in granting plaintiff's summary judg­ment mo­tion. Claxton v. Boothe, 101 Or App 416, 790 P2d 1201 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 72

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 468-473 (1974); 58 OLR 545 (1980)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 72—Sales, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors72.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 72, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­072ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information