The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Accettura (Ps) purchased a new 2014 Palomino trailer from Vacationland for $26,000. They took possession on April 25. By June, they discovered water leaking into the RV from the emergency exit window. They brought the RV back to D for repair, which D performed without charge. In July Ps took the RV to Michigan. During a rainstorm, the RV leaked extensively into the dinette area, damaging the walls and causing electrical failure. Ps towed the RV back to D for repair. D was unable to repair the defect itself, so one of its employees told Ps that it would have to send the RV to the manufacturer for repair. D could not estimate how long the manufacturer would take to repair the RV. On August 2, Ps called D and verbally revoked acceptance of the RV. The manufacturer picked the RV up on or around August 4 and returned it on or around September 23. D called Ps to pick it up. Ps' attorney confirmed the earlier revocation of acceptance of the RV. Ps sued D seeking the return of their purchase price and other damages under four theories of recovery: revocation of acceptance under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss Act) (15 U.S.C. § 2310(d) (2012)); breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Act (id.); revocation of acceptance and cancellation of a contract under Illinois's adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/2-608(1)(b), 2-711(1) (West 2014)); and return of purchase price under section 2-711(1) of the UCC (id.). D moved for summary judgment in that Ps failed to give it a reasonable opportunity to cure. The court agreed. The appeals court affirmed. The appellate court affirmed. Ps only seek review of the revocation of acceptance claim under the UCC 2-608(1)(b).

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.