## Facts

- Charles and Shirley Keen sought to buy a three-bedroom mobile home measuring 14 feet by 70 feet, within a $9,000–$9,500 price range.
- A salesman showed them multiple units, including some smaller than requested without informing them.
- The Keens selected a unit after the salesman assured their son it measured 14 feet by 70 feet.
- The written contract stated the home’s width as 14 feet but omitted its length.
- The seller had readily available documents showing the actual length and the salesman knew the unit was not the requested size.
- The seller provided paperwork (manufacturer’s origin statement and title application) listing the unit as 14 feet by 70 feet.
- After delivery, the home drifted off its footings; when the seller declined to assist, the Keens hired a third party to reskirt the home.
- During reskirting, the Keens discovered the home was only 64 feet long, reducing living space by 84 square feet.
- The Keens complained to the seller and then sued.

## Issues

1. Whether delivery of a 14-foot by 64-foot mobile home instead of a represented 14-foot by 70-foot home was a nonconformity that substantially impaired the value of the goods to the buyers, permitting revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608.
2. Whether the buyers’ continued occupancy of the mobile home barred revocation or showed there was no substantial impairment.

## Decision

- The trial court found the seller breached the contract but denied rescission/revocation, reasoning that continued occupancy showed no substantial impairment of value.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the size shortfall substantially impaired the home’s value to the Keens under UCC § 2-608.
- The Court of Appeals rejected continued occupancy as determinative of substantial impairment where the focus is the value to the particular buyer.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognizing a justified revocation of acceptance.

## Legal Principles

- Under UCC § 2-608, a buyer may revoke acceptance of a commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to the buyer, including where acceptance was induced by the seller’s assurances or by difficulty of discovery.
- “Substantial impairment” is assessed by the goods’ value to the specific buyer, not solely by an objective market-value comparison.
- Continued possession or use after discovery does not automatically defeat revocation when notice is timely and continued use is consistent with the buyer’s post-revocation rights, including the buyer’s security interest in the goods.
- Seller knowledge of nonconformity and repeated assurances supporting the buyer’s mistaken belief can support revocation when the defect is later discovered.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that delivering a materially shorter mobile home than represented substantially impaired the value of the purchase to these buyers, permitting revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608 notwithstanding the buyers’ continued occupancy, and it remanded for determination of appropriate relief.


Keen v. Modern Trailer Sales, Inc., 578 P.2d 668 (Colo. App. 1978)