## Facts

- Nathan Gappelberg bought a large-screen Advent television from Neely Landrum (The Video Station), paying cash and receiving a trade-in credit for his old television.
- The new television quickly developed multiple problems; Landrum and an authorized repair service made several house calls attempting repairs.
- Within weeks, the television stopped operating entirely.
- Gappelberg allowed removal of the television for repair but later refused further repair efforts and demanded return of his money and the traded-in television.
- Landrum could not return the traded-in television because it had been committed as a promotional prize; Landrum offered a replacement television instead.
- Gappelberg rejected the replacement offer and sued seeking restitution-type relief and attorney’s fees, relying on UCC revocation of acceptance and related consumer remedies.
- The case was tried to the court on stipulated facts; the trial court found that the defects substantially impaired the television’s value and that Gappelberg timely revoked acceptance, but it nonetheless ruled for Landrum based on Gappelberg’s refusal to accept replacement.

## Issues

1. Under UCC § 2-608, does a seller have a right to cure a substantial nonconformity by repair or replacement after the buyer has revoked acceptance?
2. If the buyer otherwise satisfies the requirements for revocation, does refusal of a post-revocation replacement defeat the buyer’s revocation remedy?

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the trial court and the court of appeals.
- The court held that, after a valid revocation of acceptance, the seller’s right to cure by repair or replacement is terminated.
- The court rendered judgment for Gappelberg on liability under revocation-of-acceptance principles and remanded for determination of attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- UCC § 2-508 grants a seller a right to cure after rejection, but UCC § 2-608 contains no comparable post-revocation cure right; that omission is treated as intentional.
- A valid revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608 functions similarly to rescission: it cancels the transaction and entitles the buyer to recover the price paid, subject to statutory conditions.
- When the trial court’s findings establish the elements of revocation (acceptance without knowledge of defects later discovered, timely revocation, and substantial impairment), the seller cannot preserve the sale by insisting on post-revocation repair or replacement.
- The UCC’s balance between seller cure opportunities and buyer protection is addressed before revocation; after revocation, the buyer’s right to be restored to the pre-transaction position controls.

## Conclusion

The court held that a seller cannot force a cure by repair or replacement after a buyer has validly revoked acceptance under UCC § 2-608; the buyer’s revocation stands and permits cancellation-type remedies, with attorney’s fees to be determined on remand.


Gappelberg v. Landrum, 666 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. 1984)