Rester v. Morrow
1 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 751, 491 So.2d 204 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under UCC § 2-608, a buyer may revoke acceptance of a good if its nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him. This determination is based on the cumulative effect of all defects and the seller's unsuccessful repair attempts over time, not just the final defects present at the moment of revocation, as there comes a point when "enough is enough."
Facts:
- On April 13, 1981, Norman L. Rester purchased a demonstrator Renault car with 2,915 miles from Tommy Morrow A.M.C., Inc. for $8,800.
- Immediately after the purchase, Rester discovered numerous defects, including a persistent gasoline odor in the passenger compartment, a leaking air conditioner, a malfunctioning oil indicator gauge, and electrical problems.
- Over the subsequent five months, Rester took the car for repairs on five or six separate occasions for a growing list of issues that also came to include stalling, battery problems, a faulty passenger seat adjuster, and a falling fuse panel.
- The sellers and the manufacturer, American Motor Sales Corp. (AMC), made multiple, unsuccessful attempts to repair the various defects; some repairs were temporary, while others were not performed at all.
- In September 1981, after the car had been at the dealership for over two weeks for another round of repairs, Rester was told it was ready.
- Upon inspecting the car, Rester observed that minor cosmetic defects (a hanging fuse panel, soiled carpet, missing chrome) were still not fixed and was told by a service manager that the manufacturer's representative had instructed them not to fix anything else.
- Believing the car had not been properly repaired and having lost faith in the sellers' ability to ever make it reliable, Rester refused to take possession of the vehicle.
- Rester later received a safety recall notice from AMC regarding a fuel line defect that could cause fuel leaks and engine fires, a problem consistent with the gas odor he had repeatedly reported.
Procedural Posture:
- Norman L. Rester filed suit against Tommy Morrow A.M.C., Inc., Martin Motor Sales, and American Motor Sales Corp. in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, a trial court.
- The suit alleged a right to revoke acceptance of a vehicle and sought recovery of the purchase price.
- At the conclusion of Rester's case at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial judge granted the defendants' motion for a directed verdict, finding that Rester had failed to show a substantial impairment of the car's value.
- A final judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, from which Rester, as the appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 a series of persistent, unrepaired defects in a vehicle, when viewed in their totality over time, create a jury question on whether the vehicle's value is substantially impaired to the buyer, permitting revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608, even if the final defects triggering the revocation are minor?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, J.
Yes. A series of persistent, unrepaired defects, when viewed in their totality over time, creates a jury question on whether a car's value is substantially impaired to the buyer, permitting revocation of acceptance. The trial court erred by focusing only on the minor defects present on the day Rester finally refused the car. The correct legal analysis considers the 'totality of the circumstances,' including the aggregate of all defects, the multiple failed repair attempts, and the resulting loss of faith in the vehicle's integrity. A seller's right to cure under the UCC is not perpetual; 'there comes a time when enough is enough.' The 'substantial impairment to him' standard is primarily subjective to the buyer's unique circumstances but is viewed through the objective lens of what a reasonable person in those circumstances would find to be a substantial impairment. Given Rester's need for reliable transportation and the multitude of problems that plagued the car, a reasonable jury could find substantial impairment, and the issue should not have been taken from them.
Dissenting - Hawkins, J.
No. The dissent respectfully disagreed with the majority's conclusion but offered no substantive reasoning, stating that the reasons would be set forth if a petition for rehearing were filed.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the 'substantial impairment' standard for revocation of acceptance under the UCC, particularly in 'lemon law' scenarios. It establishes that courts must evaluate the cumulative impact of a series of defects and the entire history of repair attempts, rather than isolating the final triggering incident. The decision solidifies the 'shaken faith' doctrine, recognizing that a consumer's loss of confidence in a product's fundamental reliability, caused by repeated problems, can itself constitute a substantial impairment of value. This prevents sellers from prolonging a dispute by 'tinkering indefinitely' and provides a remedy for buyers stuck with a chronically defective product.
