2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 2 - Sales › Part VII - Remedies › § 28:2–715. Buyer’s incidental and consequential damages

§ 28:2–715. Buyer’s incidental and consequential damages.
(1) Incidental damages resulting from the seller’s breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions in connection with effecting cover and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach.
(2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach include
(a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and
(b) injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.
(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 668, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1.)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:2-715.
1973 Ed., § 28:2-715.
Section References
This section is referenced in § 28:2-712 and § 28:2-713.
Uniform Commercial Code Comment
Prior Uniform Statutory Provisions:
Subsection (2)(b)—Sections 69(7) and 70, Uniform Sales Act.
Changes:
Rewritten.
Purposes of Changes and New Matter:
1. Subsection (1) is intended to provide reimbursement for the buyer who incurs reasonable expenses in connection with the handling of rightfully rejected goods or goods whose acceptance may be justifiably revoked, or in connection with effecting cover where the breach of the contract lies in non-conformity or non-delivery of the goods. The incidental damages listed are not intended to be exhaustive but are merely illustrative of the typical kinds of incidental damage.
2. Subsection (2) operates to allow the buyer, in an appropriate case, any consequential damages which are the result of the seller’s breach. The “tacit agreement” test for the recovery of consequential damages is rejected. Although the older rule at common law which made the seller liable for all consequential damages of which he had “reason to know” in advance is followed, the liberality of that rule is modified by refusing to permit recovery unless the buyer could not reasonably have prevented the loss by cover or otherwise. Subparagraph (2) carries forward the provisions of the prior uniform statutory provision as to consequential damages resulting from breach of warranty, but modifies the rule by requiring first that the buyer attempt to minimize his damages in good faith, either by cover or otherwise.
3. In the absence of excuse under the section on merchant’s excuse by failure of presupposed conditions, the seller is liable for consequential damages in all cases where he had reason to know of the buyer’s general or particular requirements at the time of contracting. It is not necessary that there be a conscious acceptance of an insurer’s liability on the seller’s part, nor is his obligation for consequential damages limited to cases in which he fails to use due effort in good faith.
Particular needs of the buyer must generally be made known to the seller while general needs must rarely be made known to charge the seller with knowledge.
Any seller who does not wish to take the risk of consequential damages has available the section on contractual limitation of remedy.
4. The burden of proving the extent of loss incurred by way of consequential damage is on the buyer, but the section on liberal administration of remedies rejects any doctrine of certainty which requires almost mathematical precision in the proof of loss. Loss may be determined in any manner which is reasonable under the circumstances.
5. Subsection (2)(b) states the usual rule as to breach of warranty, allowing recovery for injuries “proximately” resulting from the breach. Where the injury involved follows the use of goods without discovery of the defect causing the damage, the question of “proximate” cause turns on whether it was reasonable for the buyer to use the goods without such inspection as would have revealed the defects. If it was not reasonable for him to do so, or if he did in fact discover the defect prior to his use, the injury would not proximately result from the breach of warranty.
6. In the case of sale of wares to one in the business of reselling them, resale is one of the requirements of which the seller has reason to know within the meaning of subsection (2)(a).
Cross References:
Point 1: Section 2-608.
Point 3: Sections 1-203, 2-615 and 2-719.
Point 4: Section 1-106.
Definitional Cross References:
“Cover”. Section 2-712.
“Goods”. Section 1-201.
“Person”. Section 1-201.
“Receipt” of goods. Section 2-103.
“Seller”. Section 2-103.