Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-708 (2026)

Seller's damages for non-acceptance or repudiation

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to subsection (2) and to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (§ 4-2-723), the measure of damages for non-acceptance or repudiation by the buyer is the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price together with any incidental damages provided in this chapter (§ 4-2-710), but less expenses saved in consequence of the buyer's breach.
If the measure of damages provided in subsection (1) is inadequate to put the seller in as good a position as performance would have done then the measure of damages is the profit (including reasonable overhead) which the seller would have made from full performance by the buyer, together with any incidental damages provided in this chapter (§ 4-2-710), due allowance for costs reasonably incurred and due credit for payments or proceeds of resale.

History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-708; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-708.

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

White, The Decline of the Contract Market Damage Model, 11 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 1.

Case Notes

Measure of Damages.

Where contractor repudiated his contract with supplier, supplier pursuant to § 4-2-610 could resort to any available remedy for sellers, principally damages for nonacceptance under this section, but subsection (1) of this section was unavailable where supplier could not have then tendered performance, leaving supplier its remedy for net profits under subsection (2) of this section. Capital Steel Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co., 264 Ark. 683, 574 S.W.2d 256 (1978).

Where a buyer repudiated a concrete supply contract, the seller was properly denied damages as a lost volume seller because testimony from the seller's general manager showed that the seller was not a lost volume seller; the seller would have had a limited capacity to perform other contracts if the buyer had not breached the contract upon learning that the concrete was substandard. Razorback Concrete Co. v. Dement Constr. Co., LLC, 688 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2012).

Cited: Unlaub Co. v. Sexton, 568 F.2d 72 (8th Cir. 1977).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1994–1994 · leading case: Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “I submit that, in order to show that the value of the contract had been impaired, the appellant was required to show not only the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price, but also the amount of “expenses saved in…”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-708(1) — 1 case

Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). “I submit that, in order to show that the value of the contract had been impaired, the appellant was required to show not only the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price, but also the amount of “expenses saved in…”

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.