## Facts

- Kimberly Accettura and Adam Wozniak bought a new 2014 Palomino trailer (RV) from Vacationland, Inc. for $26,000.25 and took possession in April 2014.
- In June 2014, plaintiffs discovered water leaking from an emergency-exit window; Vacationland repaired the RV at no charge.
- In July 2014, during a trip, water leaked into a different area, damaging walls and causing electrical failure.
- Plaintiffs returned the RV to Vacationland on July 14, 2014; Vacationland said it needed manufacturer repair and could not estimate completion time.
- On August 2, 2014, while the RV remained unrepaired and without a repair timetable, Wozniak verbally revoked acceptance and demanded a refund.
- The manufacturer retained the RV for repairs from roughly August 4 to September 23, 2014.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a written revocation letter on September 28, 2014; Vacationland did not refund the purchase price.
- Plaintiffs sued asserting, among other theories, revocation of acceptance under Illinois’s UCC; the trial court and appellate court entered and affirmed summary judgment for Vacationland based on plaintiffs’ failure to provide a “reasonable opportunity to cure.”

## Issues

1. Whether UCC § 2-608(1)(b) (810 ILCS 5/2-608(1)(b)) requires a buyer to give the seller an opportunity to cure a substantial nonconformity before the buyer may revoke acceptance.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded.
- The court held that the plain language of UCC § 2-608(1)(b) does not require a buyer to provide the seller an opportunity to cure before revoking acceptance.
- Because the lower courts’ summary judgment rested on an erroneous legal prerequisite, summary judgment on that basis was improper.
- The court did not decide whether plaintiffs ultimately satisfied all elements of § 2-608(1)(b), leaving that for further proceedings on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Under 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1)(b), a buyer may revoke acceptance when a nonconformity substantially impairs the goods’ value to the buyer and acceptance was reasonably induced by difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller’s assurances.
- Courts may not add extra-statutory conditions to § 2-608(1)(b); an “opportunity to cure” requirement cannot be implied where the text does not provide one.
- A seller’s statutory right to cure under 810 ILCS 5/2-508 is tied to rejection and conforming tender, not as a mandatory prerequisite to revocation of acceptance under § 2-608(1)(b).
- Article 2’s structure distinguishes rejection remedies from post-acceptance revocation, and that structure supports treating cure as non-mandatory for revocation under § 2-608(1)(b).

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court held that UCC § 2-608(1)(b) permits revocation of acceptance without first giving the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure, reversed summary judgment that imposed such a prerequisite, and remanded for further proceedings on the remaining statutory elements.


Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2019 IL 124285 (Ill. 2019)