Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-703 (2026)

Seller's remedies in general

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where the buyer wrongfully rejects or revokes acceptance of goods or fails to make a payment due on or before delivery or repudiates with respect to a part or the whole, then with respect to any goods directly affected and, if the breach is of the whole contract (§ 4-2-612), then also with respect to the whole undelivered balance, the aggrieved seller may

  1. withhold delivery of such goods;
  2. stop delivery by any bailee as hereafter provided (§ 4-2-705);
  3. proceed under § 4-2-704 respecting goods still unidentified to the contract;
  4. resell and recover damages as hereafter provided (§ 4-2-706);
  5. recover damages for nonacceptance (§ 4-2-708) or in a proper case the price (§ 4-2-709);
  6. cancel.

History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-703; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-703.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Brill, The Election of Remedies Doctrine in Arkansas, 37 Ark. L. Rev. 385.

Case Notes

Cancellation.

The defendant had a statutory right to cancel any contract with the plaintiff to deliver goods for resale where the plaintiff was more than $200,000 in arrears on payments to the defendant for goods previously delivered. Heating & Air Specialists, Inc. v. Jones, 180 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 1999).

Damages.

Where goods were accepted under § 4-2-606(1)(b), plaintiffs in breach of contract action were entitled to recover the unpaid balance of the contract price under provisions of § 4-2-709(1)(a) and defendant's breach of the contract which triggered seller's remedy under subsection (a) of this section included the right to recover damages for nonacceptance. Watson v. Miears, 612 F. Supp. 1235 (W.D. Ark. 1984), aff'd, 772 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1985).

Trial court did not err holding that a buyer was entitled to the return of $15,454 in a breach of contract action against a shaving mill seller; because the seller spent $10,406 in additional expenses to make the machine salable to another purchaser under subsection (d) of this section after the buyer declined to purchase it, that amount was properly subtracted from the buyer's $25,860 down payment. Bowen v. Gardner, 2013 Ark. App. 52, 425 S.W.3d 875 (2013).

Cited: Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S.W.2d 922 (1970); Capital Steel Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co., 264 Ark. 683, 574 S.W.2d 256 (1978).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1994–2013 · leading case: Bowen v. Gardner, 425 S.W.3d 875 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013).
Bowen v. Gardner, 425 S.W.3d 875 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “] Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-703 (Repl.2001). By selling the shaving machine to another buyer, B & C elected the remedy of resale pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-2-706 (Repl.”
Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “he value of the contract to the other, the aggrieved party may: (a) For a commercially reasonable time await performance by the repudiating party; or (b) Resort to any remedy for breach (§ 4-2-703 or § 4-2-711), even though he has notified the repudiating party that he would…”
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.