Court Opinion

ID: 9670919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:28:18.633513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:11.520182
License: Public Domain

Ryan, J.
I dissent.
While I agree that MCL 440.2608(l)(b); MSA 19.2608(l)(b) establishes what is essentially a subjective test to measure the buyer’s authority to revoke an acceptance of nonconforming goods, the requisite impairment of the value of the goods to the buyer must be substantial. It is not sufficient that the nonconformance be worrisome, aggravating, or even potentially dangerous. It must be a nonconformity which diminishes the value of the goods to the buyer to a substantial degree. The mere possibility that the new car in this case would have a flat tire in the early hours of the *461morning in an unsafe area of the City of Detroit, leaving its driver with no spare tire, although real, is unlikely. In all events, it is not a possibility which can reasonably be said to elevate the absence of a spare tire, a temporary deficiency easily remedied, to the level of a "substantial impairment” of the value of the new automobile for its ordinary use as a motor vehicle.
Consequently, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the finding of the trial court on this issue.