## Facts

- Robert J. and Marie Fortin bought a 32-foot Bayliner Conquest power boat from Ox-Bow Marina, Inc. in 1985 after being assured timely delivery and repair service near Cape Cod.
- The boat arrived at the dealer requiring extensive preparation and exhibiting multiple defects (including hull damage and missing or faulty components).
- At a pre-closing inspection, the Fortins identified defects and were assured they would be repaired by the closing date.
- At closing, the promised preparation had not begun; the Fortins nonetheless closed to avoid additional finance and storage costs, relying on renewed assurances that the boat would be ready shortly.
- When delivered to Hyannis about a month later, significant defects remained; on initial use, the boat experienced serious mechanical and electrical problems, including engine overheating and malfunctioning systems.
- Throughout the 1985 season, the Fortins repeatedly reported problems and returned the boat for repairs; despite multiple attempts, defects persisted.
- In September, Ox-Bow took the boat back for further work; by October, major defects remained.
- The Fortins notified Ox-Bow in October 1985 that they were revoking acceptance and sought a refund and related expenses, including sales tax and purchase-loan interest.
- After a bench trial, the judge found for Ox-Bow on warranty and consumer-protection claims but ruled the Fortins effectively revoked acceptance and awarded damages including sales tax and interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fortins effectively revoked acceptance under the Massachusetts U.C.C. because the boat’s nonconformities substantially impaired its value, and whether revocation was made within a reasonable time given ongoing repair efforts and seller assurances.
2. Whether sales tax paid on the purchase and interest paid on the buyers’ purchase-money loan were recoverable as incidental and consequential damages following revocation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment for the Fortins.
- The court held the Fortins effectively revoked acceptance because persistent defects substantially impaired the boat’s value to them and revocation occurred within a reasonable time.
- The court upheld inclusion of sales tax and purchase-loan interest in the damage award as recoverable U.C.C. incidental and consequential losses.

## Legal Principles

- A buyer may revoke acceptance when goods’ nonconformities substantially impair their value to the buyer, especially when acceptance and continued retention are induced by the seller’s assurances and repeated but unsuccessful repair efforts.
- Reasonable time for revocation is assessed in context, including prompt notice of defects, allowance of opportunities to cure, and the seasonable realities of using and repairing the goods.
- Following revocation, U.C.C. damages may include foreseeable losses that flow from the failed transaction, including mandatory sales tax and financing interest incurred to purchase the nonconforming goods.

## Conclusion

The court held that repeated, unresolved defects in a newly purchased boat justified revocation of acceptance under the Massachusetts U.C.C., and that the buyers could recover sales tax and purchase-loan interest as foreseeable damages resulting from the seller’s failure to provide conforming goods.


Fortin v. Ox-Bow Marina, Inc., 557 N.E.2d 1157 (Mass. 1990)