question the family ties it's very very sick so one b doesn't include the seller's right to cure it doesn't matter because the buyer in the seller agreed to allow the seller the opportunity to cure and there nor there questions you have anything else knows thank you think you revokes goods after accepting the position taken by the appellant is based on a simplistic and flawed analysis the courts recently addressing this issue of object simply put it is not enough to references the understanding of the parts where a purchase cert sets goods based upon a seller's reassurance that a known defect will be cured thus no reference the reference to cure is section  is not a right created by contract or by the statute but rather a right created by the understanding of the parts of howard's position and the court's previously taking that position ignore section primary duties is found in section two thousand five hundred and eight which requires the buyer to give the seller a reasonable opportunity to hear not only does this interpretation find support in the plain and ordinary meaning of section six hundred and eight dollars but it is also supported by the spirit and intent of the code the more recent case law from other jurisdictions addressing this issue and the committee comments to section six  the code provides general obligations of all parties in commercial transactions on their article one section one thousand one hundred and three of the code states that the code must be liberally construed and applied to promote it underlying principles which are to simplify clarify and modernize the laws regarding commercial transactions to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom usage and agreement and to make uniform the law among various jurisdictions how would you hear it's a new year theory how would you have us construe as seasonable cure the code or within a reasonable time and reasonable less depends on the nature purpose and circumstances of the action is it makes sense to require that you least have an estimate of the time it will take to cure so one of the analogies i propose in my reefs is that the new vehicle buyer protection act in illinois provides a bright line test for what reasonable opportunity to cure is i'm not asking the because each good and the facts surrounding a bargain have different circumstances that have to be taken into consideration i don't know if it would be appropriate to set the rule that a time to cure disingenuous suggestion because that the fact admitted that he was not discovered by the fire until after the fact it does have some hits of section eighteen dollars because the buyer did bring the good back to the  that time and it is arguable that what started as a situation under section one may then became a situation i'm sorry what started as a situation under one saying somehow the facts here mean that we're not going be looking at b that's right now my argument is that even looking at the section three of six  the plain language of subsection three read it as is doesn't incorporate the statute as a whole and specifically section five away which provides the seller as a right to cure if the seller seasonably notifies the something new or they if they brought in the new italy and they promised well we're going to fix it that say that if you buy something you think it's fine and you can use it for the summer for camping and then you go out and find what happened here together to make sure that the buyer is made whole due to that the fact one would be the buyer is not aware of the defect but neither is the seller who in good faith is is tendering goods that a believe to be conforming under the contract so it would not satisfy the intention of the u c c to promote commercial transactions and to allow parties to work out the spirits between themselves if if a seller was that section specifically states that those duties cannot be a very by agreement of the parties so those are permeated throughout the code also obligations on both parties and specifically to this case it was not a good making all this actually obviously the goods have been tendered by the time the defect was discovered but when and they were rejected they were not rejected because there was no known that is the set subsection the work proceeding under because that is the situation here the buyer discovered that the facts and then revoked or rejected the non conforming tender and i understand there's a distinction between rejection and revocation and that's based on timing of when the deal heard but even in that case cited by  from alabama supreme court in one thousand nine hundred and eighty five the american honda case the chief justice the scenting in that opinion stated that rather cation of acceptance can be viewed as a delayed rejection which would give rise to the which neither party considered at the time of the sale and it's a balancing act to make sure that the buyer has rights which they can then invoke if the time secure are not se based on what the facts are in this case there was not such a the fact that a substitute good had to be timed so the idea that the court could impose some kind of standard for a minor is a major defect which again depends on the facts and nature of the defect itself and whether that substantially impairs the good to the buyer and the substantial impairment standard under six hundred and eight dollars that's a subjective standard so the problem with that subjective standard win a trial the end of the day and i don't that is not the type of balance and equity that you see see seeks to strike because the as a matter of law if the situation showed that the buyer did not give the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure correct so i would further that by saying that the balfour situation the defect in belfour was they subsequently discovered the fact that the there was an issue with the engine and the engine blew up in that case the court said it was a subsequent the fact the seller had a right to cure under illinois law and they did they did not destroy friendship between one a or one b of the statu but they said before revocation is proper the seller had a right to hear and again that's further evidence in the new vehicle buyer protection act where the illinois legislature enacted that act to be a consumer protection statu but i am saying that the intent of the legislature even in the consumer protection statute evidence is that they wanted to give sellers the right to cure the facts before buyers could revo in the cure mentioned in one way isn't a right that's granted by that section it's just mentioned and subsection three incorporates the rights and duties of buyers under other sections of the code which include the duty  know that the legislature intentionally left it out how do we how do we address that share i would direct the court to the committee comments of section six hundred and eight which lend further  doesn't specifically limit itself to subsection one way or one b and in addition common by states that considerations of good faith per venture of surprise and reasonable adjustment are two weeks after the buyer had undertaken to effectuate those repairs and sent the vehicle out to the manufacturer in indiana to to do those repairs that at that time two weeks the nd district found in the trial court where on august on or before august nd were the buyers for believe revoked acceptance the letter from plaintiff's attorney revoking acceptance that they could come pick it up at any time so we have this iris bring it in i was asked for repair then buyers revoke acceptance two weeks later after a seller sends it out to the manufacturer  potentially could have a better opportunity to inspect that that has to go into that that has to be a burden placed on i'm sorry if the seller had a reasonable opportunity to inspect it it has to be a burden placed on the buyer as well to some degree and when neither party is aware of or has any reason to believe that there is a the fact all parties should be required to least make an attempt to work together to resolve the issue before resorting to revocation of acceptance which is incorporates sollars right secure find support in the plain ordinary statutory language the spirit and intent of the u c c the more recent case law and the committee comments to section six