## Facts

- A married couple contracted to buy a mobile home from a dealer, ordering the same model they had inspected on the dealer’s lot.
- The display model included a beamed living room ceiling and ceramic tile in the bathrooms.
- The husband used a wheelchair, and the dealer’s salesperson knew the home needed an entry door wide enough (about 36 inches) to allow wheelchair access.
- After delivery, the home lacked the beamed ceiling, lacked bathroom tile, and did not have the required entry-door width.
- The buyers objected and gave the dealer time and opportunity to cure, but the dealer refused to correct the nonconformities.
- After a nonjury trial, the court found the dealer breached the contract in the three identified respects and found the buyers had not accepted the home (or were entitled to treat it as not accepted for purposes of remedies).
- The trial court allowed the buyers to cancel the contract and recover the sums paid under Florida Statutes § 672.711 (U.C.C. § 2-711).
- The dealer appealed, arguing cancellation was improper because damages would have been an adequate remedy and challenging the factual findings supporting rejection/revocation.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida Statutes § 672.711 permits buyers who rightfully reject or justifiably revoke acceptance of nonconforming goods to cancel the contract and recover amounts paid without proving that damages are an inadequate remedy.
2. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the goods were nonconforming and that the buyers had not accepted the goods (or justifiably revoked acceptance), permitting cancellation and restitution.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the buyers.
- The court held that § 672.711 authorizes cancellation and recovery of payments upon rightful rejection or justifiable revocation and does not impose a requirement that the buyer show damages are inadequate.
- The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the home was nonconforming in the three specified respects and that the seller refused to cure after being given a reasonable opportunity.
- Given the supported findings, the buyers’ rejection/revocation and election of cancellation and restitution were proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida Statutes § 672.711 (U.C.C. § 2-711), a buyer who rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance may cancel the contract and recover so much of the price as has been paid.
- The statutory cancellation remedy under § 672.711 is not conditioned on proving that a damages remedy would be inadequate.
- Contract specifications known by the seller to be essential to the buyer’s intended use (including disability-related access requirements) can be material; failure to meet them supports rejection or revocation.
- On appeal from a nonjury trial, supported factual findings on nonconformity and refusal to cure are upheld absent reversible error.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed cancellation and restitution for buyers who received a materially nonconforming mobile home and faced a seller’s refusal to cure, holding that Florida’s UCC permits cancellation and recovery of payments after rightful rejection or revocation without any separate showing that damages are inadequate.


Royco, Inc. v. Cottengim, 427 So. 2d 759 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)