## Facts

- Paul and Dena Basselen bought a new recreational van manufactured by General Motors Corp. (GM) from Larry Roesch Chevrolet, Inc. (Roesch).
- In roughly the first year of ownership, they drove the van about 23,000 miles and repeatedly complained to Roesch and GM about numerous quality problems.
- The Basselens attempted to revoke acceptance of the van; Roesch rejected the revocation.
- After the first revocation attempt, the Basselens continued using the van and drove approximately 19,000 additional miles.
- The Basselens issued a second revocation of acceptance; Roesch again rejected it.
- The Basselens sued GM, Roesch, and a financing entity for, among other claims, breach of warranties and revocation of acceptance.

## Issues

1. Whether a buyer’s substantial continued use of goods after an attempted revocation of acceptance bars revocation as a matter of law.
2. Whether the trial court used an improper legal standard in rejecting the buyers’ claim that contractual warranty disclaimers and limitations were unconscionable.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment entered for the defendants on the revocation-based theory and remanded.
- Continued use after revocation does not automatically nullify revocation; whether the post-revocation use was reasonable is for the trier of fact.
- The trial court erred by treating unconscionability as limited to provisions that “shock the conscience”; unconscionability required a broader analysis.
- On remand, the fact-finder was to determine the reasonableness of the buyers’ continued use and the enforceability of the disclaimers under the correct unconscionability framework.

## Legal Principles

- After revocation of acceptance, a buyer generally must hold and preserve the goods for the seller and avoid conduct inconsistent with revocation.
- Post-revocation use does not categorically bar revocation; the controlling question is whether the use was reasonable under the circumstances.
- The buyer bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of post-revocation use.
- Unconscionability is assessed under a contextual UCC-based analysis that may consider both procedural and substantive unconscionability; it is not confined to a “shocks the conscience” formulation.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that extensive post-revocation use of a defective vehicle does not defeat revocation as a matter of law and that unconscionability of warranty disclaimers must be evaluated under a broader, context-sensitive standard; it therefore reversed summary judgment and remanded for fact-finding and reconsideration under the correct legal tests.


Basselen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 341 Ill. App. 3d 278, 792 N.E.2d 498 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)