## Facts

- Clarence Miller ordered a new 1976 Dodge Royal Monaco station wagon from Colonial Dodge, including a heavy-duty trailer package that, as ordered, included a matching spare tire.
- Miller took delivery, drove the vehicle briefly, and his wife drove it home.
- Within hours, Mrs. Miller discovered the spare tire was missing.
- The next morning, Miller demanded immediate delivery; the dealer responded that no spare was available due to a nationwide shortage.
- Miller stopped payment on the purchase checks, notified the dealer it could retrieve the vehicle, and did not use the car thereafter.
- The vehicle remained parked at Miller’s home until the temporary registration expired; it was then towed by police. Miller refused to accept delivered license plates and the dealer’s title/registration efforts in his name.
- Months later, the dealer reported the spare tire was available, but Miller had already attempted to revoke acceptance.
- Miller’s employment required extensive travel, including early-morning driving through high-crime areas; he considered a spare tire necessary for safety and for the car’s intended use.

## Issues

1. Under UCC § 2-608, can the failure to include a promised spare tire constitute a nonconformity that “substantially impairs” the vehicle’s value to the buyer, permitting revocation of acceptance?
2. Did Miller revoke acceptance within a reasonable time and satisfy his post-revocation duties regarding possession and care of the vehicle?

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held Miller was entitled to revoke acceptance.
- The Court held that the missing spare tire could substantially impair the vehicle’s value to Miller, given the bargain and Miller’s particular safety-related use.
- The Court found Miller’s revocation was timely because the nonconformity was discovered shortly after delivery and Miller promptly notified the dealer and tendered the vehicle for retrieval.
- The Court rejected the dealer’s claim that Miller abandoned the vehicle, concluding Miller reasonably held it for the seller and was not required to incur continuing costs or store it indefinitely.
- The dealer was not entitled to recover the purchase price based on the revoked acceptance, notwithstanding the later availability of the spare tire.

## Legal Principles

- Revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608 requires a nonconformity that “substantially impairs” the goods’ value to the buyer and revocation within a reasonable time after discovery.
- “Substantial impairment” is assessed as to the buyer (“to him”), allowing the buyer’s circumstances and intended use to inform whether the nonconformity is material.
- A component promised as part of the contracted package may be central to the bargain; its absence may support revocation even if the item might seem minor in the abstract.
- When the nonconformity is not readily apparent at delivery, delayed discovery may still support revocation if the buyer acts promptly upon learning of the defect.
- After revocation, the buyer must exercise reasonable care and make the goods available to the seller, but is not required to bear indefinite storage, registration, or other continuing burdens.
- A seller’s later attempted cure does not defeat a buyer’s prior valid revocation when cure is not provided within a reasonable time and would unreasonably burden the buyer.

## Conclusion

The court held that a missing spare tire promised as part of the purchase could substantially impair the vehicle’s value to this buyer under UCC § 2-608, that the buyer promptly and effectively revoked acceptance, and that the seller therefore could not recover the purchase price.


Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller, 420 Mich. 452, 362 N.W.2d 704 (1984)