On February 26, 2017, William Stem purchased a used
BMW from Gary Braden for $26,600. Stem’s primary pur-
pose 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 condi-
tion. 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.
a. What arguments would support Stem’s revocation of his
acceptance and the return of the purchase price?
b. What arguments would support Braden’s denial of Stem’s
claim?
c. Who should prevail? Explain.
