## Facts

- On April 13, 1981, Norman L. Rester bought a demonstrator 1981 Renault 18i with 2,915 miles from Tommy Morrow A.M.C., Inc. in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, for $8,800 (paid with bank financing arranged locally).
- The vehicle was covered by AMC’s limited warranty for 12 months or 12,000 miles.
- During the test drive, a small piece of chrome trim fell off the windshield; Rester did not retrieve it, and the dealer promised to replace it.
- From the time of purchase, Rester experienced recurring problems, including gasoline fumes (including in the trunk), heavy air-conditioner water leakage that soiled the carpet, oil-level indicator issues, fuse panel and other electrical problems (including the hazard lights causing the radio to come on), and stalling.
- Rester repeatedly returned the car for servicing over the next several months, but the problems persisted or reappeared after attempted repairs.
- About five months after purchase, Rester attempted to revoke his acceptance by returning the automobile to Morrow; the defendants did not accept the revocation and did not refund the purchase price.
- Rester sued Morrow, Martin Motor Sales, and American Motor Sales Corp. in the Circuit Court of Forrest County seeking revocation of acceptance and recovery of the price under Mississippi’s version of UCC § 2-608.
- At the close of Rester’s proof, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the alleged defects did not substantially impair the car’s value to Rester.
- Rester appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

## Issues

1. Under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 (UCC § 2-608), what must a buyer show to revoke acceptance of an automobile and recover the purchase price?
2. Viewing the evidence most favorably to the buyer, did Rester present enough proof that the car’s nonconformities substantially impaired its value to him to require submission of revocation to the jury (making a directed verdict improper)?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the directed verdict for the defendants.
- The court held that Rester’s proof, including evidence of repeated and unresolved defects and repeated service attempts, was sufficient to create a jury question on whether the nonconformities substantially impaired the value of the automobile to him.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A buyer may revoke acceptance under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608 when (a) the goods are nonconforming and (b) the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer, with revocation subject to statutory timing and notice requirements.
- “Substantially impairs its value to him” focuses on the individual buyer’s valuation, but it is not satisfied by minor or trivial shortcomings; the impairment must be serious in context.
- In automobile cases, multiple defects may be considered together; recurring problems across key components (such as fuel, electrical, and air-conditioning systems), coupled with unsuccessful repair efforts, can support a finding of substantial impairment.
- Whether the buyer has shown substantial impairment is commonly a fact question; where reasonable jurors could differ on that question, it should be decided by the jury rather than by directed verdict.
- On a motion for directed verdict, the court must consider the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; if that evidence could support a verdict for the plaintiff, the motion should be denied.

## Conclusion

Rester v. Morrow holds that a buyer’s evidence of recurring, unresolved automobile defects—along with repeated repair attempts and continued interference with ordinary use—can allow a reasonable jury to find “substantial impairment” under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-608, so the trial court erred by taking the revocation question from the jury and granting a directed verdict for the defendants.


Rester v. Morrow, 491 So. 2d 204 (1986)