a. What arguments would support Stem’s revocation of his acceptance and the return of the purchase price?
On February 26, 2017, William Stem purchased a used BMW from Gary Braden for $26,600. Stem’s primary purpose for buying the car was to use it to drive his child to school and various activities. Braden indicated to Stem that the car had not been wrecked and that it was in good condition. Stem thought the car had been driven only seventy thousand miles. Less than a week after the purchase, Stem discovered a disconnected plug that, when plugged in, caused the oil warning light to turn on. When Stem then took his car to a mechanic, the mechanic discovered that the front end was that of a 2007 BMW and the rear end was that of a 2003 BMW. Further investigation revealed that the front half had been driven one hundred and seventy thousand miles. On March 10, 2017, Stem sent a letter informing Braden that he refused the automobile and that he intended to rescind the sale. Braden refused. Stem then drove the automobile for seven months and nearly nine thousand miles before filing an action against Braden, seeking to revoke his acceptance and to obtain the return of the purchase price.
b. What arguments would support Braden’s denial of Stem’s claim?
c. Who should prevail? Explain.
The sustainability of the product is not reliable and not worth the value of the product as per Individual S, after using the product for a reasonable period. This gives the right to Individual S for the revocation of the acceptance of the contract made with Individual B, irrespective of the fact that, for a certain period, the car has been used because of Individual B's personal requirement.
Individual S can argue for the revocation of acceptance within a reasonable period after analyzing the sustainability of the product, for which price has been paid.