## Facts

- Swan Lake Holdings, LLC operated a golf resort in Indiana and bought 110 new Yamaha golf carts in 2006, installing a GPS system on each cart.
- During the 2006 season, the carts’ batteries began failing and would not hold a charge, sometimes stranding golfers on the course.
- By late May 2006, about 10–11 carts had battery failures; by late November 2006, 60 carts were disabled due to failed batteries.
- Swan Lake notified Yamaha of the battery problems.
- In February 2007, Yamaha replaced the batteries in all 110 carts with larger-capacity batteries.
- The replacement batteries worked for most of 2007 but began failing prematurely by the end of that year.
- In early 2008, Swan Lake replaced batteries in 22 carts.
- Swan Lake continued using the Yamaha carts for more than three golf seasons.
- On March 17, 2009, Swan Lake sent Yamaha a letter stating it was revoking acceptance of the 110 carts and shortly thereafter sued for breach of warranty and revocation of acceptance under Indiana’s UCC.

## Issues

1. Whether Swan Lake’s March 2009 notice was a timely and effective revocation of acceptance under Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608 given its extended post-defect use and delay after discovery of battery problems and attempted cure.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Yamaha on Swan Lake’s revocation of acceptance claim (Count III).
- The court held revocation was unavailable as a matter of law because Swan Lake did not satisfy statutory requirements, particularly the “reasonable time” requirement and conduct consistent with revocation.
- The order resolved only Count III; other claims (including warranty claims) were not decided in this ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608 (UCC § 2-608), a buyer may revoke acceptance only if a nonconformity substantially impairs the goods’ value to the buyer and the revocation occurs within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should discover the grounds for revocation, with notice to the seller.
- When acceptance is based on an expectation of cure, revocation must follow within a reasonable time after it becomes apparent that the cure was not seasonably effective.
- Extensive, prolonged use of goods after discovering defects can be inconsistent with revocation and can render revocation untimely as a matter of law.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute of material fact exists on essential statutory elements of revocation.

## Conclusion

The court removed revocation of acceptance from the case because Swan Lake continued using the carts for years after learning of substantial battery failures and after Yamaha’s attempted cure, making its 2009 revocation untimely and inconsistent with treating the carts as rejected under Indiana’s UCC.


Swan Lake Holdings, LLC v. Yamaha Golf-Car Co., No. 3:09-CV-228, 2011 WL 781598 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 28, 2011)