## Facts

- Walter Yates bought a new Dodge club-cab pickup truck from Clifford Motors, Inc. in January 1977 for $2,000 plus the trade-in value of his 1976 Dodge Aspen; financing was arranged through a bank.
- During a test drive, Yates noticed a front-end vibration; the salesman attributed it to road conditions and represented that, if mechanical, it could be fixed by a minor adjustment.
- Before delivery, Yates discovered the driver’s door would not close properly; the salesman assured him the door would be repaired and that there would be no other difficulties because the vehicle was new.
- At delivery, the door defect remained and the paint/finish was marred; Yates was told to take the truck and return later for repairs because the shop was closed.
- After delivery, Yates experienced continuing nonconformities (including vibration and door problems) and repeatedly returned the truck to the dealer for attempted repairs.
- Yates told the financing bank he would not make payments until repairs were completed.
- About four months after delivery, Yates sued the dealer in assumpsit seeking rescission and related damages; about two months later, the dealer repossessed the truck.
- During roughly six months of possession, Yates drove the truck about 9,000 miles.

## Issues

1. Whether Yates’s taking delivery, continued use (about 9,000 miles), and delay before suit constituted acceptance barring rescission, or instead supported rejection or revocation due to substantial nonconformities.
2. Whether Yates provided adequate and timely notice to the dealer of breach and/or rejection under the Pennsylvania U.C.C.
3. Whether the defects were substantial enough to justify rescission rather than being minor or cosmetic.
4. Whether the trial court’s rescission damages award properly accounted for Yates’s use and benefits received from the truck.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the finding of liability against the dealer and upheld Yates’s entitlement to rescission based on persistent defects and unsuccessful repair efforts.
- The court held the evidence supported a conclusion that the nonconformities materially affected the truck’s value to Yates and were not cured within a reasonable time.
- The court concluded the dealer had sufficient notice of the problems through Yates’s repeated repair demands and the subsequent lawsuit.
- The court reversed the damages award and remanded for recalculation, directing the trial court to account for Yates’s substantial use of the vehicle in determining restitutionary relief.

## Legal Principles

- In a non-jury case, appellate courts defer to trial-court fact findings (especially when affirmed by a court en banc) if supported by the evidence, viewing conflicts and inferences in favor of the prevailing party.
- A buyer’s continued use of allegedly nonconforming goods does not automatically bar rescission or revocation when the buyer promptly complains, allows reasonable opportunities to cure, and defects substantially impair the goods’ value.
- U.C.C. notice of breach is satisfied by practical communications that inform the seller of the problem and the buyer’s dissatisfaction; repeated repair requests and the filing of a complaint may constitute sufficient notice.
- When rescission is granted, the monetary remedy must reflect restitution principles, including an appropriate allowance or credit for the buyer’s use and benefits received prior to rescission.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the buyer’s right to rescind the sale of a persistently defective new truck despite substantial interim use, but required a new damages calculation that credits the buyer’s use and aligns the restitutionary award with U.C.C. principles.


Yates v. Clifford Motors, Inc., 423 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980)