## Facts

- Plaintiffs purchased a new 2014 Palomino trailer (RV) from an RV dealer for $26,000.25, taking possession in April 2014.
- In June 2014, plaintiffs discovered a water leak from an emergency-exit window; the dealer repaired it at no charge.
- In July 2014, a second leak occurred during a trip, with water entering the dinette area, damaging walls and causing electrical failure.
- Plaintiffs returned the RV to the dealer on July 14, 2014; the dealer stated the RV would need manufacturer repairs and could not estimate the duration.
- Around August 2, 2014, while repairs were being arranged or beginning, one plaintiff verbally revoked acceptance.
- The manufacturer possessed the RV for repairs from about August 4 through September 23, 2014; the RV then returned to the dealer, which notified plaintiffs it was ready for pickup.
- On September 28, 2014, plaintiffs’ attorney sent a written revocation of acceptance letter.
- Plaintiffs sued seeking refund of the purchase price, alleging revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608(1)(b) and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the dealer on the ground that plaintiffs did not give a reasonable opportunity to cure before revocation.

## Issues

1. Whether a buyer seeking revocation under UCC § 2-608(1)(b) must provide the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure the nonconformity.
2. Whether, on the undisputed repair-and-revocation timeline, plaintiffs provided a reasonable opportunity to cure or instead revoked prematurely as a matter of law.
3. Whether the trial court improperly relied on standards associated with Illinois’ New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act when assessing “reasonableness” in a UCC revocation case.
4. Whether the seller’s cure efforts satisfied UCC § 2-508(2) and whether summary judgment and the handling of plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion were proper.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the dealer.
- The court held plaintiffs’ revocation was ineffective because they failed to allow the dealer a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged defects.
- The court concluded that the undisputed chronology permitted only one inference: revocation occurred while cure efforts were underway or before they could reasonably be completed.
- The court rejected claims of reversible error based on the trial court’s consideration of “reasonableness” and its post-judgment procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608(1)(b) for substantial impairment is constrained by the UCC’s cure policies and, in this setting, requires allowing the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure before revocation becomes effective.
- Whether an opportunity to cure was “reasonable” may be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment when the key timeline facts are undisputed and support only one conclusion.
- Illinois’ New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act does not govern UCC revocation claims not brought under that statute; at most, it may be considered without displacing UCC analysis.
- A seller’s efforts to correct nonconformities—such as arranging manufacturer repairs—can constitute an exercise of cure within a reasonable time under UCC principles, and a buyer cannot cut off cure by revoking prematurely.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the dealer because the buyers attempted to revoke acceptance before the dealer had a reasonable opportunity to complete repairs, making revocation unavailable on the undisputed facts.


Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 112 N.E.3d 1054 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)