N.C.P.I.—Civil 741.45

The (state number) issue reads:

"Did the plaintiff justifiably revoke his acceptance of the (name

good) purchased from the defendant?"1

You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state

number) issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means

that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, three

things:

First, that the plaintiff accepted the (name good) [on the

reasonable assumption that the breach of warranty would be cured, and it

was not seasonably cured] [because the plaintiff's acceptance was

reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery of the breach of

warranty before acceptance or by the defendant's assurances].

Second, that the breach of warranty substantially impaired the

value of the (name good) to the plaintiff. You may consider the plaintiff's

needs, circumstances and his actual reaction to the breach. You may also

consider whether the plaintiff's reaction to the breach was reasonable

under the circumstances.2

Third, that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the revocation of

acceptance within a reasonable time after he discovered or should have

discovered the ground for the revocation (and before any substantial

change in the condition of the (name good) not caused by its own

defects). Formal notice that acceptance is being revoked is not

necessary. Any conduct by the plaintiff manifesting to the defendant that

he is seriously dissatisfied with the (name good) and expects satisfaction

is sufficient. In determining whether revocation was made within a

reasonable time, you may consider all of the surrounding circumstances,

including the nature of the defect, the difficulty of its discovery, the

complexity of the (name good) and the sophistication of the plaintiff.

(Where a seller attempts to make adjustments to cure the breach of

warranty or where a seller makes repeated assurances that the non-

conformity can be and will be cured, it is reasonable for a buyer to delay

revocation and continue to use the (name good) to see if the seller can

meet his assurances.)

Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the plaintiff has

the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that

the plaintiff justifiably revoked its acceptance of the (name good), then it

would be your duty to answer this issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, it would be your duty to

answer this issue "No" in favor of the defendant.