84-2-602. Manner and effect of rightful rejection. (1) Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender. It is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the two following sections on rejected goods (sections 84-2-603 and 84-2-604),
(a) after rejection any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the seller; and
(b) if the buyer has before rejection taken physical possession of goods in which he does not have a security interest under the provisions of this article (subsection (3) of section 84-2-711), he is under a duty after rejection to hold them with reasonable care at the seller's disposition for a time sufficient to permit the seller to remove them; but
(c) the buyer has no further obligations with regard to goods rightfully rejected.
(3) The seller's rights with respect to goods wrongfully rejected are governed by the provisions of this article on seller's remedies in general (section 84-2-703).
History: L. 1965, ch. 564, § 82; January 1, 1966.
KANSAS COMMENT, 1996
1. This section states the procedural requirements for an effective rejection under 84-2-601. Subsection (1) requires the buyer to reject within a reasonable time after delivery of the goods. What constitutes a "reasonable time" is a question of fact and depends on "the nature, purpose and circumstances" of the rejection. 84-1-204(2). Factors a court should consider include the difficulty of discovering the nonconformity, the contract terms, whether the goods are perishable, and the course of performance of the parties after delivery. James J. White & Robert S. Summers, 1 Uniform Commercial Code 447 (4 th ed. Practitioner Treatise Series 1995). An extreme case is La Villa Fair v. Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc., 219 K. 395, 548 P.2d 825 (1976), in which the Kansas Supreme Court held timely a rejection of carpeting despite a delay of nine months.
2. In addition to acting within a reasonable time, the buyer must give seasonable notice of rejection to the seller. See 84-1-204(3) (defining seasonable). As to what the notice of rejection must contain, see 84-2-605.
3. Subsection (2) sets out the buyer's duties toward the rejected goods. After rejection, the buyer essentially becomes a bailee of the goods and must exercise reasonable care in holding them for a sufficient time for the seller to remove them. That duty is the only duty of a non-merchant buyer toward rightfully rejected goods. If the rejecting buyer is a merchant, it is subject to additional duties under 84-2-603. If the buyer has a security interest in the rejected goods, such as for any prepayment of price or incidental expenses incurred (84-2-711(3)), the buyer may hold the goods to enforce its security interest. In that case, the provisions of Article 9 determine the buyer's duty toward the goods. See 84-9-113 and 84-9-207.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Remedies for Breach of Sales Contract Under the Code," Keith Hey, 7 W.L.J. 35, 36 (1967).
"The Buyer's Right to Return Unsatisfactory Goods—The Uniform Commercial Code Remedies of Rejection and Revocation of Acceptance," George I. Wallach, 20 W.L.J. 20 (1980).
"Broadcast Advertising: What Has It Done to the Audience?" Ronald C. Griffin, 23 W.L.J. 237, 264 (1984).
"Electronic Commerce in Kansas: Contract Formation and Formalities Under Article 2," Christopher R. Drahozal, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 22 (1999).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Nine-month delay in inspecting carpet did not constitute acceptance under facts and circumstances. La Villa Fair v. Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc., 219 Kan. 395, 398, 548 P.2d 825.
2. Buyer accepted goods; defendant not authorized to cure or substitute for nonconforming defects; remedies of buyer. Linscott v. Smith, 3 Kan. App. 2d 1, 4, 587 P.2d 1271.
3. Cited; measure of damages discussed for buyer's use of vehicle after revocation of acceptance. Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 233 Kan. 1044, 1048, 1053, 668 P.2d 139 (1983).
4. Cited; party believing breach of contract has duty to give seasonable notice; right to cure, when. Inter-Americas Ins. Corp. v. Imaging Solutions Co., 39 Kan. App. 2d 875, 887, 185 P.3d 963 (2008).
|
|