Problem.Dispute.Post revocation use

    Buyer purchased a car from seller for cash. Buyer accepted the goods but, by virtue of various defects in the car amounting to breaches of both express and implied warranties, buyer is entitled to revoke acceptance.

    Buyer sends a letter to seller notifying seller of the revocation and demanding a return of the purchase price. In the letter, buyer says that she will return the car simultaneously with the seller's tender of the purchase price. Thereafter, buyer continues to use the car to get to and from work and to make typical required trips (e.g., groceries, kids to school, doctors' appointments). She does this because she cannot afford to buy another car until she receives a refund of the purchase price on the car whose acceptance she is revoking.  We might also imagine the following additional or alternative facts: (1) she owns another car; (2) she doesn't own another car but a neighbor has offered to let her use the car when available; (3) she doesn't own another car, can't borrow a car, doesn't have cash to buy another car, but has cash for a down payment for another car and would qualify for a loan; (4) she drives the car from San Jose to Los Angeles to visit friends.

    Does buyer's post-revocation use of the car somehow undo the effectiveness of the revocation?  If so, what are the rights of both buyer and seller?  If not, what are the rights of both buyer and seller?  Consider U.C.C 2-606(1), 2-608(2), (3), and U.C.C 2-711(3). How would your answer be affected in a jurisdiction that adopts R.U.C.C. 2-608?  In a jurisdiction that has adopted a consumer protection statute (such as California's lemon law) that denies restitution to a seller for a buyer's use of the car only for the period of time prior to the buyer first bringing a defect to the attention of the manufacturer?