Court of Appeals (Mich.) Says Lemon Law Plaintiff’s Continued Use of Vehicle After Revocation of Acceptance Renders the Revocation Ineffective

Generally, if the buyer rejects the goods he is in possession of, he “is under a duty after rejection to hold them with reasonable care at the seller’s disposition for a time sufficient to permit the seller to remove them.” MCL 440.2602(2)(b). And because a buyer who revokes his acceptance of goods “has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them” initially, MCL 440.2608(3), “[c]ontinued use of the goods is not an option,” Computer Network, 265 Mich App at 323. As a result, once the buyer revokes his acceptance of the goods, “any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the seller.” MCL 440.2602(2)(a).  Here, plaintiff’s counsel sent correspondence to MBUSA on October 30, 2015, stating that he rejected and revoked acceptance of the vehicle and rescinded the vehicle sales contract. The correspondence stated that plaintiff had “parked the vehicle and is not using it” and that plaintiff intended to cover “the contract by either renting or purchasing an alternative vehicle.” However, at his May 2016 deposition, plaintiff admitted that he had been driving the vehicle “[e]very day right now.” And when asked how many miles were on the vehicle, plaintiff answered that there was “a little bit” over 35,000 miles. Thus, after he had purportedly revoked his acceptance, plaintiff had driven the vehicle approximately 7,000 miles.⁵ Therefore, because there is no question of fact that plaintiff continued to use the vehicle for at least six or seven months after attempting to revoke his acceptance, his revocation was ineffective. See Computer Network, 265 Mich App at 324. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary disposition on this count.