Opinion ID: 2063689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: waiver of right to revoke

Text: Homera also alleges that the Erlings waived their right to revoke their acceptance by continuing to make full use of the mobile home. The Erlings use of the home prior to the notice of revocation was proper. § 41-02-71(1), N.D.C.C. Their acceptance was without notice of the defects in the trailer because such defects were not easily discoverable. § 41-02-71(1)(b), N.D.C.C. The Erlings continuing use prior to the revocation was in reliance on the seller's assurances that the defects would be corrected. Id. After notice of revocation, the Erlings continued to use the mobile home as their residence. Subsection 3 of Section 41-02-71, N.D.C.C. provides: 3. A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them. [Emphasis added.] § 41-02-71(3), N.D.C.C. Section 41-02-65, N.D.C.C., sets out the requirements of a rightful rejection: 2. Subject to the provisions of the two following sections on rejected goods (sections 41-02-66 and 41-02-67), a. after rejection any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the seller; ... § 41-02-65(2)(a), N.D. C.C. Section 41-02-67, N.D.C.C., [2] provides that if the seller gives no instructions within a reasonable time after notification of rejection [revocation], the buyer may store the rejected goods for the seller's account. In this case, neither Homera nor Carlson gave the Erlings instructions concerning retaking of the home after receiving notice of revocation. Therefore, the Erlings were entitled to retain possession of the home. § 41-02-67, N.D.C.C. In addition, Section 41-02-90, N.D. C.C., gives the buyers a security interest in goods upon a justifiable revocation of acceptance of such goods. Living in the trailer home was the Erlings' most reasonable method of protecting their security interest in the home. Jorgensen v. Pressnall, supra, 545 P.2d at 1386. In this case, Carlson testified that the home was in very good condition and was maintained in as good a condition as could be expected during the Erlings' continued possession. Under the circumstances, the continued possession of the mobile home by the Erlings was not wrongful.