## Facts

- The Seekings attempted to buy a motor home from Jimmy GMC, trading in their prior motor home for a $5,800 credit; the initial unit was rejected when it would not start, and the trade-in was not returned because it had been sold.
- The Seekings then purchased a Beaver-manufactured motor home from Jimmy GMC; Beaver provided an express warranty, and Jimmy GMC acted as an authorized warranty repair center but disclaimed its own express and implied warranties.
- The motor home exhibited multiple problems shortly after delivery (including nonfunctioning gauges and generator, furnace failure, carburetor and mileage problems, stalling, air conditioner malfunction, and sewage backup).
- The Seekings repeatedly returned the unit to Jimmy GMC for repairs over several visits, but material defects continued.
- The Seekings sued Jimmy GMC and Beaver for contract and warranty-related claims and ultimately elected revocation of acceptance/rescission-type relief.
- After a bench trial, the court found continuing material defects not cured and awarded revocation and monetary recovery (including trade-in value, payments made, certain warranty and licensing costs) against both defendants, and ordered the defendants to hold the Seekings harmless on the financing obligation.

## Issues

1. Whether the Seekings validly revoked acceptance of the motor home against Jimmy GMC under UCC § 2-608 based on substantial, uncured nonconformities.
2. Whether revocation of acceptance (or comparable UCC contract relief) is available against Beaver, a manufacturer that did not sell the vehicle to the Seekings, absent privity or a selling-agency relationship.
3. How warranty disclaimers and limitations on consequential damages affect buyer remedies, including whether any limitation is unenforceable due to unconscionability or failure of essential purpose, and whether loss-of-use damages are recoverable and adequately proven.

## Decision

- The court held revocation of acceptance was available against Jimmy GMC as the seller, and affirmed revocation and related UCC monetary remedies against Jimmy GMC.
- The court held revocation of acceptance was not available against Beaver because Beaver was not the seller and there was no privity or evidence that Jimmy GMC acted as Beaver’s agent for the sale.
- The court rejected imposing revocation-based liability on Beaver and otherwise treated contractual limitations on consequential damages as generally enforceable unless shown unconscionable or to have failed of essential purpose.
- The court remanded for further proceedings concerning the Seekings’ claimed loss-of-use damages.

## Legal Principles

- UCC revocation of acceptance under § 2-608 is a buyer’s remedy against the buyer’s seller; absent privity (or a selling-agency relationship), a remote manufacturer is not subject to revocation.
- Substantial, continuing defects that remain after reasonable repair opportunities can constitute nonconformity substantially impairing value and justify revocation against the seller.
- A seller’s warranty disclaimer does not, by itself, bar UCC revocation and the buyer’s restitution-type recovery and incidental damages when statutory requirements for revocation are met.
- Under UCC § 2-719, contractual limits on remedies and exclusions of consequential damages may be enforced unless unconscionable or the limited remedy fails of its essential purpose.
- Loss-of-use damages, if sought as consequential damages, require adequate proof and must fit within UCC standards governing foreseeability and reasonable certainty.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court permitted revocation of acceptance and associated recovery against the dealer-seller due to substantial, uncured defects, but barred revocation against the manufacturer for lack of privity or selling agency, and remanded for further determination of loss-of-use damages under UCC remedial rules.


Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 130 Ariz. 596, 638 P.2d 210 (Ariz. 1981)