## Facts

- In 1994, Edward Johnson bought a Deere combine from a dealer, made a $30,634.36 down payment, and financed the balance through Deere & Company, which held a security interest.
- The combine repeatedly malfunctioned during the 1994 season despite numerous repair visits by the dealer.
- On March 3, 1995, Johnson sent Deere a letter revoking acceptance, tendering the combine, and requesting a replacement.
- Deere refused to replace the combine or accept its return.
- Johnson continued using the combine during the 1995 and 1996 seasons and stopped making payments on the financing contract.
- Deere repossessed and resold the combine.
- Deere sued to recover the unpaid contract balance; Johnson counterclaimed for warranty breaches and intentional misrepresentation.
- The jury rejected Deere’s contract recovery and found for Johnson on a warranty theory that necessarily implied effective revocation; it also found an approximate $70,000 “rental value” for the combine.
- Post-verdict, the district court denied Deere’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the contract claim, used Rule 15(b) to treat a quantum meruit theory as tried, and entered a net money judgment for Deere based on rental value less Johnson’s down payment (plus prejudgment interest).

## Issues

1. Whether Johnson’s continued use of the combine and failure to return it after written revocation waived or nullified his UCC revocation, entitling Deere to recover on the financing contract.
2. Whether the district court properly used Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) to add an unpleaded quantum meruit claim post-verdict and award Deere rental-value restitution.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s rental-value finding (relevant only if quantum meruit recovery was procedurally available).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held Johnson’s revocation of acceptance was effective and was not waived by continued use after Deere refused to retake the combine.
- The court reversed the district court’s judgment awarding Deere recovery on a Rule 15(b) quantum meruit theory, concluding the prerequisites for amendment to conform to the evidence were not met.
- The court noted the evidence was sufficient to support the rental-value figure, but that finding could not support a judgment absent a properly tried and pleaded basis for quantum meruit recovery.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter a take-nothing judgment for both parties.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCC, a buyer’s continued use of goods after revocation does not necessarily waive revocation when the buyer has tendered return and the seller refuses to accept the goods back, leaving the buyer with limited practical alternatives.
- Waiver of revocation requires conduct sufficiently voluntary and inconsistent with revocation; post-revocation use driven by necessity after the seller’s refusal to accept return may not meet that standard.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) allows amendment to conform pleadings to issues tried by express or implied consent; it does not permit a court to create and award relief on a new, unpleaded theory after trial when consent to try that theory is not shown.
- Evidence introduced for other litigated issues does not, by itself, establish implied consent to try a distinct restitution or quantum meruit claim.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the jury’s determination that the buyer effectively revoked acceptance despite continued use of the defective combine after the seller refused return, and it rejected a post-verdict Rule 15(b) conversion of the case into quantum meruit, directing a take-nothing judgment for both parties.


Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2001)