Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc.
2019 IL 124285 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Illinois's adoption of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-608(1)(b), a buyer may revoke acceptance of a substantially nonconforming good without first providing the seller an opportunity to cure the defect, if the buyer accepted the good without discovering the nonconformity and their acceptance was reasonably induced by difficulty of discovery or seller's assurances.
Facts:
- On April 19, 2014, Kimberly Accettura and Adam Wozniak purchased a new 2014 Palomino trailer (RV) from Vacationland, Inc. for $26,000.25.
- In June 2014, Accettura and Wozniak discovered water leaking into the RV from the emergency exit window and brought it back to Vacationland for repair.
- In July 2014, during a trip to Michigan, the RV extensively leaked again into the dinette area, damaging the walls and causing electrical failure.
- Accettura and Wozniak towed the RV back to Vacationland on July 14, where Vacationland employees informed them that the RV would need to be sent to the manufacturer for repair, but could not provide an estimated timeline.
- On August 2, before the manufacturer picked up the RV, Accettura and Wozniak verbally informed Vacationland that they no longer wanted the RV and revoked acceptance.
- The manufacturer picked up the RV around August 4, repaired it, and returned it around September 23, at which point Vacationland informed Accettura and Wozniak the RV was repaired.
- On September 28, Accettura and Wozniak's attorney sent Vacationland a letter confirming the revocation of acceptance.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Kimberly Accettura and Adam Wozniak filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Kane County, seeking damages for revocation of acceptance and breach of implied warranty.
- Defendant Vacationland, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs failed to give it a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect.
- The Circuit Court of Kane County, the Hon. David Akemann presiding, granted summary judgment to Vacationland, finding that plaintiffs revoked acceptance without providing a reasonable time to cure.
- Accettura and Wozniak appealed the circuit court's decision to the Appellate Court for the Second District, which affirmed the circuit court's judgment.
- Accettura and Wozniak, as appellants, appealed the appellate court's decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, seeking review only of the revocation of acceptance claim under the UCC.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Illinois's adoption of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-608(1)(b) require a buyer to provide a seller with a reasonable opportunity to cure a substantial nonconformity before the buyer can revoke acceptance of the goods?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Garman
No, Illinois's adoption of UCC § 2-608(1)(b) does not require a buyer to provide a seller with an opportunity to cure a substantial nonconformity before revoking acceptance. The court found the plain language of the statute unambiguous. It noted that UCC § 2-608(1)(a) explicitly mentions a 'seasonable cure,' indicating the legislature intended a cure requirement in that specific circumstance, which applies when a buyer accepts a known nonconformity with the assumption it will be cured. In contrast, subsection (1)(b), which applies when a buyer accepts goods without discovering the nonconformity, contains no such language requiring an opportunity to cure. The court reasoned that this omission signifies that no cure opportunity is required under (1)(b). The court distinguished previous appellate court interpretations, such as in Belfour v. Schaumburg Auto, by noting they exclusively analyzed subsection (1)(a). It rejected Vacationland’s argument that plaintiffs accepted repair as their remedy or that UCC § 2-608(3), stating a revoking buyer has the same rights and duties as if they had rejected the goods, incorporates § 2-508 (seller's right to cure rejected goods). The court clarified that the 'rights and duties' in § 2-608(3) refer to a buyer's post-revocation obligations regarding the goods, found in §§ 2-602, 2-603, and 2-604, not the seller's right to cure. The court also observed that while a split of authority exists among other jurisdictions, a majority supports its interpretation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant aspect of buyer's remedies under the UCC in Illinois, strengthening protections for consumers who unknowingly accept defective goods. By explicitly distinguishing between UCC § 2-608(1)(a) and (1)(b), the court ensures that buyers are not forced to accept an indefinite repair timeline when they initially believed they purchased a conforming product. This ruling places a greater burden on sellers to deliver conforming goods initially, as they lose the automatic right to cure once a buyer revokes acceptance under (1)(b), though the buyer must still demonstrate substantial impairment of value. This interpretation aligns Illinois with the majority of jurisdictions on this specific point of law.
