NM Stat § 55-2-605 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 55 - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 2 - Sales|Part 6 - BREACH, REPUDIATION AND EXCUSE|Section 55-2-605 - Waiver of buyer's objections by failure to particularize.

(1) The buyer's failure to state in connection with rejection a particular defect that is ascertainable by reasonable inspection precludes the buyer from relying on the unstated defect to justify rejection or to establish breach: (a) where the seller could have cured it if stated seasonably; or (b) between merchants when the seller has after rejection made a request in writing for a full and final written statement of all defects on which the buyer proposes to rely. (2) Payment against documents made without reservation of rights precludes recovery of the payment for defects apparent in the documents. History: 1953 Comp., § 50A-2-605, enacted by Laws 1961, ch. 96, § 2-605; 2005, ch. 144, § 35. ANNOTATIONSOFFICIAL COMMENTS UCC Official Comments by ALI & the NCCUSL. Reproduced with permission of the PEB for the UCC. All rights reserved. Prior uniform statutory provision. — None. 1. The present section rests upon a policy of permitting the buyer to give a quick and informal notice of defects in a tender without penalizing him for omissions in his statement, while at the same time protecting a seller who is reasonably misled by the buyer's failure to state curable defects. 2. Where the defect in a tender is one which could have been cured by the seller, a buyer who merely rejects the delivery without stating his objections to it is probably acting in commercial bad faith and seeking to get out of a deal which has become unprofitable. Subsection (1) (a), following the general policy of this article which looks to preserving the deal wherever possible, therefore insists that the seller's right to correct his tender in such circumstances be protected. 3. When the time for cure is past, Subsection (1) (b) makes it plain that a seller is entitled upon request to a final statement of objections upon which he can rely. What is needed is that he make clear to the buyer exactly what is being sought. A formal demand under Paragraph (b) will be sufficient in the case of a merchant-buyer. 4. Subsection (2) applies to the particular case of documents the same principle which the section on effects of acceptance applies to the case of goods. The matter is dealt with in this section in terms of "waiver" of objections rather than of right to revoke acceptance, partly to avoid any confusion with the problems of acceptance of goods and partly because defects in documents which are not taken as grounds for rejection are generally minor ones. The only defects concerned in the present subsection are defects in the documents which are apparent. This rule applies to both tangible and electronic documents of title. Where payment is required against the documents they must be inspected before payment, and the payment then constitutes acceptance of the documents. Under the section dealing with this problem, such acceptance of the documents does not constitute an acceptance of the goods or impair any options or remedies of the buyer for their improper delivery. Where the documents are delivered without requiring such contemporary action as payment from the buyer, the reason of the next section on what constitutes acceptance of goods, applies. Their acceptance by non-objection is therefore postponed until after a reasonable time for their inspection. In either situation, however, the buyer "waives" only the defects apparent in the documents. Point 2: Section 2-508. Point 4: Sections 2-512(2), 2-606(1) (b) and 2-607(2). "Between merchants". Section 2-104. "Buyer". Section 2-103. "Seasonably". Section 1-204. "Seller". Section 2-103. "Writing" and "written". Section 1-201. The 2005 amendment, effective January 1, 2006, deleted the qualification in Subsection (2) that defects must be apparent on their face. Complaint that goods not "up to snuff" insufficient to permit cure. — Buyer's complaint that plants did not look "up to snuff," without detailing the particular problems, was insufficient to constitute rejection so as to permit cure by seller as contemplated by this section. Oda Nursery, Inc. v. Garcia Tree & Lawn, Inc., 1985-NMSC-098, 103 N.M. 438, 708 P.2d 1039. Three-month delay in rejection not seasonable notice. — Where buyer fails to reject the entire shipment of goods until three months after seller's salesman refused to make requested adjustments for those goods rejected by buyer, the buyer has failed to give seller seasonable and particular notice of rejection as to the entire shipment and is precluded from rejecting any goods other than those originally set aside and presented to salesman. Celebrity, Inc. v. Kemper, 1981-NMSC-084, 96 N.M. 508, 632 P.2d 743. Law reviews. — For article, "Buyers and Sellers of Goods in Bankruptcy," see 1 N.M. L. Rev. 435 (1971). For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to commercial law, see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 293 (1983). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 77A C.J.S. Sales § 194 et seq.