## Facts

- A corporation owned by Donald Oren purchased a Blue Bird Wanderlodge M380 recreational vehicle (RV) from an authorized dealer for about $337,244.
- The RV allegedly had numerous defects, especially involving the electrical system, and the buyer sought repeated repairs from the dealer and manufacturer.
- Repairs continued over time but allegedly did not cure the problems.
- The buyer returned the RV to the dealer, removed personal property, and later sent the manufacturer a letter asserting ongoing defects and failure to conform the vehicle to express warranties, requesting repurchase; the manufacturer refused.
- The buyer later entered a consignment arrangement with the dealer, and the RV was sold to a third party before trial.
- The buyer and the corporate purchaser sued the manufacturer (and later the dealer) for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, violation of Minnesota’s Lemon Law, and revocation of acceptance under the U.C.C.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the breach of express warranty claim was barred by the limited warranty’s one-year contractual limitations clause, including when the claim accrued based on when plaintiffs knew or should have known the RV could not be maintained as warranted.
2. Whether the statute of limitations for implied warranty claims was equitably tolled or defendants were equitably estopped from asserting it based on ongoing repair efforts and communications.
3. Whether resale of the RV to a third party before trial bars a claim under Minnesota’s Lemon Law.
4. Whether plaintiffs presented triable issues on revocation of acceptance (including effectiveness, timeliness, notice, the target of revocation, and whether resale constituted reacceptance).

## Decision

- Reversed summary judgment for the manufacturer on the express warranty claim because a genuine dispute existed as to when plaintiffs knew or should have known the manufacturer could not maintain the RV as warranted.
- Affirmed summary judgment for defendants on implied warranty claims as time-barred; plaintiffs did not show equitable tolling or estoppel under Minnesota law.
- Affirmed summary judgment against plaintiffs on the Minnesota Lemon Law claim because plaintiffs sold the RV to another consumer before trial.
- Reversed in part on revocation of acceptance because factual disputes existed regarding whether plaintiffs effectively and timely revoked acceptance and whether resale necessarily constituted reacceptance; remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- A contractual one-year limitations period in an express warranty may be enforceable, but accrual can turn on when the buyer discovered or should have discovered the breach, including when the buyer should have known repair efforts could not bring the goods into conformity.
- Under Minnesota law, equitable tolling or equitable estoppel to avoid a limitations bar requires more than continued repair attempts or assurances; it generally requires deceptive or inequitable conduct (e.g., fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation) that induced delay in filing suit.
- A consumer who sells the allegedly defective vehicle to another consumer before trial cannot maintain a Minnesota Lemon Law claim.
- Revocation of acceptance under the U.C.C. is typically fact-dependent, including substantial impairment, timeliness, and notice, and subsequent resale to mitigate damages does not automatically constitute reacceptance as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that factual disputes precluded summary judgment on the express warranty and revocation theories, but it enforced limitations rules against implied warranty claims and barred Lemon Law relief once plaintiffs resold the vehicle, remanding for further proceedings on the surviving claims.


Highway Sales, Inc. v. Blue Bird Corp., 559 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 2009)