Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 47
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2719 (2026)

Contractual modification or limitation of remedy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Subject to the provisions of subsections B and C of this section and of section 47-2718 on liquidation and limitation of damages:

1. The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this chapter and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this chapter, as by limiting the buyer's remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of non-conforming goods or parts; and

2. Resort to a remedy as provided is optional unless the remedy is expressly agreed to be exclusive, in which case it is the sole remedy.

B. Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this title.

C. Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable but limitation of damages where the loss is commercial is not.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 6× “It is wholly inconsistent to assert that unconscionability under § 47-2302 requires some procedural irregularity when unconscionability under § 47-2719 clearly does not. Therefore, we conclude that under A.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 694 P.2d 198 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 47-2719 (5 Ariz. Leg.Serv. 262-63 (1984)).”
Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., 158 P.3d 232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “¶22 Moreover, the purpose of the rule AFX proposes is consistent with § 195 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981), which prohibits contracts exempting parties from intentional or reckless tort liability, and A.R.S. § 47-2719(C) of Arizona’s Uniform Commercial Code,…”
Schweber Elec. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 850 P.2d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “”) § 47-2719(B). This argument was not raised in the trial court and we therefore will not address it on appeal.”
Nomo Agroindustrial Sa De CV v. Enza Zaden North Am., Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Ariz. 2007). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-2719(B), a limitations of damages clause is invalid “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose .”
De Shazer v. Nat'l RV Holdings, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 791 (D. Ariz. 2005). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 47-2719. While the parties agree that this is not a U.”
Muller v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 844 (D. Ariz. 2004). · cites it 2× “warranty, we conclude that the Arizona Supreme Court would apply similar principles to limit disclaimers of damages in this case. 5 That court neither favors privity nor wants to see the law evolve separately in this area.”
Sw. Pet Prods., Inc. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (D. Ariz. 2000). · cites it 2× “The Confirmation establishes that if the goods fail to conform to the contract specifications, Koch may at it’s [sic] election, either replace the goods with conforming goods within a reasonable time, or, pay to the Buyer the difference between the contract price and the fair…”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “2008) 16 (cleaned up) (quoting A.R.S. § 47-2719(B)). 17 Plaintiffs’ theory here is that the “failure of essential purpose” doctrine provides an 18 alternative ground—separate and apart from their theory that AADWA automatically strips 19 out the limitations on remedies appearing…”
Kocharov v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 13 A.R.S. § 47-2719(C). The determination of unconscionability is to be made by the Court 14 as a matter of law.”
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “14 ¶22 Moreover, the purpose of the rule AFX proposes is consistent with § 195 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981), which prohibits contracts exempting parties from intentional or reckless tort liability, and A.R.S. § 47-2719(C) of Arizona’s Uniform Commercial Code,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2719(B) — 4 cases
Nomo Agroindustrial Sa De CV v. Enza Zaden North Am., Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Ariz. 2007). “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-2719(B), a limitations of damages clause is invalid “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose .”
Sw. Pet Prods., Inc. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (D. Ariz. 2000). “The Confirmation establishes that if the goods fail to conform to the contract specifications, Koch may at it’s [sic] election, either replace the goods with conforming goods within a reasonable time, or, pay to the Buyer the difference between the contract price and the fair…”
Schweber Elec. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 850 P.2d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “”) § 47-2719(B). This argument was not raised in the trial court and we therefore will not address it on appeal.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). “2008) 16 (cleaned up) (quoting A.R.S. § 47-2719(B)). 17 Plaintiffs’ theory here is that the “failure of essential purpose” doctrine provides an 18 alternative ground—separate and apart from their theory that AADWA automatically strips 19 out the limitations on remedies appearing…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2719(C) — 7 cases
Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1995). “It is wholly inconsistent to assert that unconscionability under § 47-2302 requires some procedural irregularity when unconscionability under § 47-2719 clearly does not. Therefore, we conclude that under A.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 694 P.2d 198 (Ariz. 1984). “See A.R.S. § 47-2719 (5 Ariz. Leg.Serv. 262-63 (1984)).”
Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., 158 P.3d 232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶22 Moreover, the purpose of the rule AFX proposes is consistent with § 195 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981), which prohibits contracts exempting parties from intentional or reckless tort liability, and A.R.S. § 47-2719(C) of Arizona’s Uniform Commercial Code,…”
Schweber Elec. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 850 P.2d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “”) § 47-2719(B). This argument was not raised in the trial court and we therefore will not address it on appeal.”
Nomo Agroindustrial Sa De CV v. Enza Zaden North Am., Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Ariz. 2007). “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-2719(B), a limitations of damages clause is invalid “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose .”
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.