## Facts

- Deborah A. McCullough bought a new 1978 Chrysler LeBaron from Bill Swad Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., covered by a limited warranty and an extended service contract.
- Immediately upon delivery, she reported defects including braking problems and multiple cosmetic issues; additional mechanical defects soon developed (including transmission and air conditioning).
- The day after purchase, the brakes failed; she returned the vehicle for repair, but the defects persisted and further problems emerged (including steering-related concerns).
- She returned the car again for additional repairs; the dealer kept it for more than three weeks, yet unresolved defects remained and new issues appeared after return.
- McCullough gave written notice revoking acceptance and demanded return of the purchase price; the dealer refused.
- She continued using the vehicle after revocation because she needed transportation and lacked a practical alternative.

## Issues

1. Whether a buyer waives revocation of acceptance under U.C.C. § 2-608 by continuing to use the goods after giving notice of revocation.
2. Whether the reasonableness of post-revocation use, and whether nonconformities “substantially impair” the value of the goods to the buyer, are questions of fact for the trier of fact.
3. Whether the defects in the automobile substantially impaired its value to the buyer.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed judgment for the buyer.
- Continued use after revocation does not automatically waive revocation; the controlling question is whether the continued use was reasonable under the circumstances.
- The reasonableness of post-revocation use and substantial impairment are determinations for the trier of fact.
- No inference may be drawn from continued use that the nonconformities did not substantially impair the vehicle’s value to the buyer.
- The evidence supported the finding that the defects substantially impaired the vehicle’s value because they undermined the buyer’s faith in the car’s integrity and reliability.

## Legal Principles

- A buyer does not waive revocation of acceptance by continued use of goods after revocation if the continued use is reasonable.
- Whether post-revocation use is reasonable is a question of fact for the trier of fact.
- Whether nonconformities substantially impair the value of goods to the buyer is a question of fact for the trier of fact.
- Courts may not infer from a buyer’s continued use after revocation that the goods’ nonconformities do not substantially impair their value.
- For automobiles, substantial impairment exists when nonconformities undermine the buyer’s faith in the integrity and reliability of the vehicle.

## Conclusion

The court held that a consumer who reasonably continues using a defective automobile after revoking acceptance does not forfeit U.C.C. revocation rights, and that both reasonableness of continued use and substantial impairment are factual matters, with substantial impairment satisfied when defects destroy the buyer’s confidence in the vehicle’s reliability.


McCullough v. Bill Swad Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 5 Ohio St. 3d 181, 449 N.E.2d 1289 (Ohio 1983)