Opinion ID: 3063583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Opportunity to Cure

Text: The Buyer argues that if it was required to provide the Seller with an opportunity to seasonably cure prior to revocation, there is at least a triable issue of fact as to whether it satisfied this requirement. It further asserts that even if it had returned the Coach to the Seller after the initial repairs, any further attempts at repair would have been futile because the “cure” for the electrical defect was not discovered by the manufacturer until November 2005 (nearly eight months after revocation). Accordingly, the Buyer asserts that it should be excused from the requirement of providing the Seller with another opportunity to cure because the 14 statute should not be construed so as “to require [it] to do a futile and useless thing.” BDI Distrib., Inc. v. Beaver Computer Corp., 501 S.E.2d 839, 841 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). We disagree. Although the statutory opportunity to “seasonably cure” does not entitle a seller to unlimited attempts to cure a defect, it does require a buyer to provide a seller with a reasonable time in which to attempt to make repairs. O.C.G.A. § 11-1-204(3) (explaining that an action is taken “seasonably” when it is taken “at or within a reasonable time”). What constitutes a reasonable time in which to cure depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of a particular case. O.C.G.A. § 11-1-204(2). See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wheeler, 586 S.E.2d 83, 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). In this case, the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the Buyer shows that the Buyer gave the Seller one opportunity to cure after the defect in the electrical system first became apparent. After these initial repairs, the Buyer did not inform the Seller when the Coach continued to have additional problems; rather, it returned the Coach to the manufacturer for repairs. Nearly three months after acceptance, after the manufacturer also had made one failed attempt to correct the defect, the Buyer informed the Seller that it was revoking its acceptance of the Coach. Based upon this undisputed evidence, we agree with the district court that, as a matter of law, the Buyer provided the 15 Seller with an insufficient opportunity to cure. Providing only one opportunity to repair – before the extent of the defect was truly apparent – is not reasonable, especially where the product in question is as complicated as a motor coach. See e.g., Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1199 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (holding, in the context of a claim for breach of warranty, that no reasonable juror could conclude that a dealership acted unreasonably where it took the dealership six attempts over six months to successfully repair the defects within the vehicle); see also McDonald v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 603 S.E.2d 456, 460 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (“When the purchaser returns the product to the dealer and makes the product available for repair, refusal to repair, unsuccessful repair, or repeated failures of the repair constitute a breach of the express warranty.”).3 At the least, the Seller was entitled to notice of the additional problems and an opportunity to attempt to repair them at some time during the three months prior to the Buyer’s purported revocation. The Buyer’s failure to provide this notice and opportunity bars the revocation claim as a matter of law. The Buyer’s argument that it was excused from providing the Seller with an opportunity to cure because attempts to repair would have been futile is not 3 A buyer must also provide a seller with a “reasonable amount of time” to repair prior to bringing a claim for breach of warranty. See UCC §§ 2-605, 2-607(3)(a). We look to Georgia cases addressing breach of warranty claims, therefore, as instructive in determining what generally constitutes a “reasonable” opportunity to cure in this revocation case. 16 supported by the evidence. Certainly, we should not read an “opportunity to cure” requirement so as to “require[] a party to whistle in the wind,” BDI Distrib., Inc., 501 S.E.2d at 841, but, in this case, there is no evidence that the Buyer knew prior to revocation that the Seller would have been unable to repair the Coach.4 As such, the Buyer’s failure to provide the Seller with another opportunity to cure was not, and could not have been, based on the perceived futility of providing such an opportunity.