We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee. Given the testimony of Reed and Rogers regarding their reliance onGlen's assurances, we find no infirmity in appellee's revocation of acceptance. Next, appellant argues that appellee did not provide sufficient proof of the product's nonconformity. Before beginning our analysis of this issue, we note that, when a circuit judge is sitting as fact-finder, we will not reverse his findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Whether goods are nonconforming is a question of fact.
Nonconformity is to be determined within the framework of the facts in each particular case.
The evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the appellee. Brady v. Bryant, supra . For a buyer to revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit on the basis of nonconformity, the nonconformity must substantially impair the value to the buyer. O'Neal Ford, Inc. v. Early, supra. Ark. Code Ann.