Ramirez v. Autosport
Facts
The Ramirezes contracted with Autosport to buy a new camper van for $14,100 and received a $4,700 allowance for their trade-in van, which they left with Autosport. On the scheduled delivery date and again later, the new van had defects, including scratched paint, missing hookups, missing hubcaps, and later soaking wet cushions, and Autosport repeatedly said the van was not ready. The Ramirezes never took possession of the new van, continued asking Autosport to finish it, and ultimately sought return of their trade-in. Autosport later sold the trade-in to an innocent third party.
Issue
Whether, under the UCC, the buyers could reject a camper van with minor defects and cancel the contract when the seller failed to cure those defects within a reasonable time. The case also presented the related question of what remedy the buyers could obtain after cancellation when their trade-in had already been sold.
Rule
The UCC preserves the perfect tender rule to the extent that a buyer may reject goods for any nonconformity before acceptance. Rejection does not automatically terminate the contract because the seller has a right to cure: within the contract time for performance, that right is unconditional, and after that time the seller has a further reasonable time to cure if he reasonably believed the goods would be acceptable with or without a money allowance. If the seller fails to cure within a reasonable time, the buyer who rightfully rejected may cancel the contract under UCC 2-711 and recover so much of the purchase price as has been paid, including value given by trade-in.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Elena refuses delivery that day, which is the strongest statement of her rights under the governing rule?