Opinion ID: 1911047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Rescission and Revocation

Text: The trial court denied Colton's request for rescission stating that due to the length of time and the changed condition of the truck, it would be very difficult to return the parties to the condition they were in before the sale. Colton concedes that if rescission was an inappropriate remedy under the UCC, then the trial court should have permitted him to revoke acceptance under SDCL 57A-2-605. Revocation is a permissible substitute for rescission under the UCC in some jurisdictions. Henderson v. Chrysler Corp., 191 Mich.App. 337, 477 N.W.2d 505, appeal denied, 439 Mich. 1010, 485 N.W.2d 501 (1992); City National Bank of Charleston v. Wells, 181 W.Va. 763, 384 S.E.2d 374 (1989). But Colton's failure to raise this issue at the trial level bars him from raising it on appeal. Weaver v. Boortz, 301 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1981).