Opinion ID: 2625597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Reasonable time for revoking acceptance

Text: Wheeler's argues that the Waddells should not have been allowed to revoke their acceptance because they did not attempt to revoke within a reasonable time after purchasing the RV. We disagree. Under NRS 104.2608(2), [r]evocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. The statute further provides that revocation is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it. [9] We have never before determined a reasonable timeline for revocation of acceptance. However, other jurisdictions have held that the reasonable time determination depends upon the nature, purpose and circumstances of the transaction. [10] The reasonable time determination is generally considered to be an issue of fact for the trial court. [11] Here, the district court found that the Waddells were entitled to revoke their acceptance since they notified Wheeler's of their intent to revoke within a reasonable time. Mr. Waddell testified that he first noticed the RV's defects immediately after his purchase. Mr. Waddell took the RV to Wheeler's service department whenever he noticed a defect and Wheeler's always attempted, often unsuccessfully, to repair the RV. In September 1998, Mr. Waddell took the RV to Wheeler's after continued engine overheating. As a result of these defects, Wheeler's service department kept the RV for approximately seven months of the eighteen months that the Waddells owned the RV. Roger Beauchemin, a former employee of Wheeler's service department, testified that Wheeler's was unable to repair some of the defects, including the engine's chronic overheating problems. In January 1999, the Waddells again brought the RV to Wheeler's complaining of persistent engine overheating. The Waddells demanded a full refund of the purchase price in March 1999 and sought legal counsel. Through counsel, the Waddells wrote to Wheeler's during the summer of 1999 to resolve the matter. Wheeler's did not respond to these inquiries until early 2000. Unable to resolve the dispute with Wheeler's, the Waddells revoked their acceptance of the RV in June 2000. The seller of nonconforming goods must generally receive an opportunity to cure the nonconformity before the buyer may revoke his acceptance. [12] However, as the Supreme Court of Mississippi has recognized, the seller may not postpone revocation in perpetuity by fixing everything that goes wrong. [13] Rather, [t]here comes a time when . . . [the buyer] is entitled to say, `That's all,' and revoke, notwithstanding the seller's repeated good faith efforts to [cure]. [14] Furthermore, the seller's attempts to cure do not count against the buyer regarding timely revocation. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada has held that the time for revocation of acceptance will be tolled while the seller attempts repairs. [15] Tolling the reasonable time for revocation of acceptance is appropriate given the buyer's obligation to act in good faith, and to afford the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure any defect in the goods. [16] The Waddells gave Wheeler's several opportunities to repair the defects before revoking their acceptance. Because Wheeler's was unable to repair the defects after a total of seven months, the Waddells were entitled to say that's all and revoke their acceptance, notwithstanding Wheeler's good-faith attempts to repair the RV. [17] Also, the reasonable time for revocation was tolled during the seven months that Wheeler's kept the RV and attempted to repair the defects. [18] Accordingly, the district court's determination is supported by substantial evidence and is not clearly erroneous. [19]