When Acceptance Doesn't Mean "Acceptance."
There is a common misperception that merely taking possession of goods constitutes "acceptance" for purposes of the Uniform Commercial Code. In most instances this usually holds true...but not always.
Under the statutory definition of "acceptance," the UCC gives a buyer of goods reasonable time to inspect the goods, a temporary right to possession, and even some possible use of the goods without necessarily having "accepted" them. See Trinity Industries, Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., Inc., 77 S.W.3d 159, 176 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Moreover, even where "acceptance" can be said to have occurred, a buyer may not necessarily have lost his or her right to revoke. A specific example can be found in T.C.A. 47-2-607(2) and 2-608. These provisions make clear that, even if a buyer "accepts" nonconforming goods, the buyer does not waive the right to subsequently reject or revoke the acceptance if it was made on the reasonable assumption that a nonconformity would be seasonably cured. If this nonconformity is not cured, the buyer may still be able to walk away.
This is the long way of saying that you should never assume that possession equals acceptance for purposes of the UCC. "Acceptance" is a fact-specific inquiry that needs to be analyzed at the outset of each and every case involving the sale of goods.