Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-713 (2026)
Buyer's damages for nondelivery or repudiation
- Subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (§ 4-2-723), the measure of damages for non-delivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this chapter (§ 4-2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
- Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.
History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-713; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-713.
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
Incidental or Consequential Damages.
Consequential damages would include loss resulting from the particular needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise. Lake Village Implement Co. v. Cox, 252 Ark. 224, 478 S.W.2d 36 (1972).
Incidental or consequential damages are recoverable items of damages under both § 4-2-712 and this section. Subject to the evidentiary rules of admissibility, evidence relating to both items is admissible. Dickson v. Delhi Seed Co., 26 Ark. App. 83, 760 S.W.2d 382 (1988).
Market Price.
When the current market price is difficult to prove or is not readily available, the court is granted reasonable leeway in receiving evidence of current prices in other comparable markets or at other times comparable to the one in question. Chappell Chevrolet, Inc. v. Strickland, 4 Ark. App. 108, 628 S.W.2d 25 (1982).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the buyer to testify to a national price for limited issue automobile in order to establish the market price of the automobile at the time of the seller's breach, where the limited number of the automobiles made it difficult to prove a market price in a given geographic location, and where the buyer's national price was based on sales of those automobiles in at least nine states. Chappell Chevrolet, Inc. v. Strickland, 4 Ark. App. 108, 628 S.W.2d 25 (1982).
Cited: Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S.W.2d 922 (1970); Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Weston, 610 F.2d 501 (8th Cir. 1979); Herrick v. Robinson, 267 Ark. 576, 595 S.W.2d 637 (1980).