Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 7-2-615 (2026)

Excuse by Failure of Presupposed Conditions.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except so far as a seller may have assumed a greater obligation and subject to Section 7-2-614 on substituted performance:

(a) Delay in delivery or nondelivery in whole or in part by a seller who complies with paragraphs (b) and (c) is not a breach of his duty under a contract for sale if performance as agreed has been made impracticable by the occurrence of a contingency the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made or by compliance in good faith with any applicable foreign or domestic governmental regulation or order whether or not it later proves to be invalid.

(b) Where the causes mentioned in paragraph (a) affect only a part of the seller’s capacity to perform, he must allocate production and deliveries among his customers but may at his option include regular customers not then under contract as well as his own requirements for further manufacture. He may so allocate in any manner which is fair and reasonable.

(c) The seller must notify the buyer seasonably that there will be delay or nondelivery and, when allocation is required under paragraph (b), of the estimated quota thus made available for the buyer.

(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2023–2023 · leading case: Mercedes-Benz US Int'l Inc v. Inteva Prods. LLC (N.D. Ala. 2023).
Mercedes-Benz US Int'l Inc v. Inteva Prods. LLC (N.D. Ala. 2023). · cites it 13× “First Inteva claims that its performance under MBUSI and Inteva’s contract is excused under the Force Majeure provision in the Master Terms and under the impracticability doctrine under Ala. Code § 7-2-615 . (Doc. 48 at 17). Alternatively, Inteva argues that its liability to…”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-615(b) — 1 case
Mercedes-Benz US Int'l Inc v. Inteva Prods. LLC (N.D. Ala. 2023). “First Inteva claims that its performance under MBUSI and Inteva’s contract is excused under the Force Majeure provision in the Master Terms and under the impracticability doctrine under Ala. Code § 7-2-615 . (Doc. 48 at 17). Alternatively, Inteva argues that its liability to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.