Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-715 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Smolla, What Types of Losses are Recoverable Under Arkansas's Products Liability Law, 1984 Ark. L. Notes 11.

Ark. L. Rev.

Contracts — Damages — The Tacit Agreement Doctrine in Arkansas, 18 Ark. L. Rev. 169.

Voucher to Products Liability: The Mechanics of U.C.C. § 2-607(5)(a), 29 Ark. L. Rev. 486.

Notes, Ozark Kenworth, Inc. v. Neidecker: A Buyer's Continued Use of Goods After Revocation of Acceptance, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 857.

Case Note, Stifft's Jewelers v. Oliver: The Tacit Agreement Test, etc., 40 Ark. L. Rev. 403.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey of Arkansas Law, Business Law, 1 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 118.

Case Notes

Consequential Damages.

Where drainage machinery was not delivered and assembled until around May 1, 1965, purchaser was not entitled to consequential damages for failure of 1965 soybean crops because of alleged failure of machinery to perform, and there was no evidence vendor had reason to know purchaser was relying on this machinery for 1965 soybean crop. Marion Power Shovel Co. v. Huntsman, 246 Ark. 152, 437 S.W.2d 784 (1969).

Judgment granting consequential damages to lessee of television equipment could not stand where award was based in part on delay in furnishing equipment and nothing in the record supported finding that lessor had guaranteed or warranted that equipment would be in operating order by particular date. KLPR TV, Inc. v. Visual Electronics Corp., 465 F.2d 1382 (8th Cir. 1972).

In an action upon repudiation by seller of a contract for sale of farm equipment, consequential damages would include loss resulting from particular needs of which the seller at time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented. Lake Village Implement Co. v. Cox, 252 Ark. 224, 478 S.W.2d 36 (1972).

Whether an item of damage falls within subdivision (2)(a) is dependent upon factual determinations which are to be made by the trier of fact. Dickson v. Delhi Seed Co., 26 Ark. App. 83, 760 S.W.2d 382 (1988).

Consequential damages or anticipated profits may be recovered if the evidence establishes the alleged damages with reasonable certainty. Dickson v. Delhi Seed Co., 26 Ark. App. 83, 760 S.W.2d 382 (1988).

Anticipated profits may be recoverable as consequential damages if the jury finds that the losses resulted from the buyer's general or particular requirements of which the seller had reason to know and could not have been prevented by cover. Dickson v. Delhi Seed Co., 26 Ark. App. 83, 760 S.W.2d 382 (1988).

Upon failure of seller's limited remedy's essential purpose, buyer was then entitled to any of the buyer's remedies provided by the Uniform Commercial Code, and included among them are consequential damages provided in this section. Great Dane Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Malvern Pulpwood, Inc., 301 Ark. 436, 785 S.W.2d 13 (1990).

Evidence.

Evidence that buyer purchased truck for a particular purpose, that he attempted to minimize damages by substituting truck, that he always had commercial loads available, that he had a lease contract during the time the truck was “down” due to the alleged malfunctioning and that he suffered loss of profits according to his business records, was competent and admissible on issue of consequential damages. Gramling v. Baltz, 253 Ark. 352, 485 S.W.2d 183 (1972).

Tractor buyer's proof of consequential damages resulting from tractor seller's alleged failure to deliver tractor hitch lacked the reasonable certainty necessary to recovery, since the evidence presented was insufficient to take the question of anticipated profits or consequential damages out of the realm of speculation and conjecture and would present to the jury an incomplete set of figures as to anticipated profits. Traylor v. Huntsman, 253 Ark. 704, 488 S.W.2d 30 (1972).

In action to revoke acceptance of drilling rig, wherein buyer did not show proof of past profits or explain failure to use other rig in order to minimize losses, denial of recovery of lost profits resulting from continual breakdowns of new drilling rig was not against the preponderance of the evidence. Snow v. C.I.T. Corp. of South, Inc., 278 Ark. 554, 647 S.W.2d 465 (1983).

Failure to Give Notice.

The trial court found that the buyer had not timely rescinded the transaction, the buyer was limited to the remedies available for a breach of contract in regard to the accepted goods, and the buyer was not entitled to an award of damages under either this section or § 4-2-714 since the buyer failed to give notice of the alleged breach to the seller within a reasonable time after the buyer discovered or should have discovered the breach. Herrick v. Robinson, 267 Ark. 576, 595 S.W.2d 637 (1980).

Loss of Profits.

Recovery of loss of profits due to breach of warranty must take into account different market conditions, actual production capacity, type of operation, its efficiency and all other relevant factors influencing amount of profits during the period that profits are recoverable and the years used for comparative purposes. Lewis v. Mobil Oil Corp., 438 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1971).

Damages, under this section and § 4-2-714(2), and (3), for supply of improper oil to use in hydraulic system in saw mill included direct expenses and loss of profits for period during which the oil was used but did not include loss of profits which occurred after plaintiff stopped using the oil and where this loss was due to plaintiff's lack of capital resources. Lewis v. Mobil Oil Corp., 438 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1971).

Evidence supported an award for lost profits, where there was substantial evidence introduced showing that appellee suffered a loss in profits as a consequence of the breach, and there was substantial evidence presented as to the amount of its loss. The type of loss was also one that could be reasonably expected to flow from the breach. Tremco, Inc. v. Valley Aluminum Prods. Corp., 38 Ark. App. 143, 831 S.W.2d 156 (1992).

Lost Time.

The buyer of a computer-assisted electrocardiographic system was not entitled to an award of damages for “lost time” which represented the time an employee was away from his other duties because of the increased time spent with the computer system due to its failure to operate as warranted, where there was no evidence that the employee requested payment for the special services or that the parties intended such a payment to be made. Wilson v. Marquette Elecs., Inc., 630 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1980).

Particular Needs.

The plaintiff was not entitled to consequential damages arising from a breach of contract for the sale of a car where he never presented evidence that, at the time of the contract, the defendants had reason to know his particular needs for the car. Smith v. Russ, 70 Ark. App. 23, 13 S.W.3d 920 (2000).

Pleading.

In absence of an appropriate pleading setting out basis of claim for consequential damages or any specific findings supporting such damages and describing the time period in which they occurred, award must be set aside. KLPR TV, Inc. v. Visual Electronics Corp., 465 F.2d 1382 (8th Cir. 1972).

There was no need for purchaser to plead cover in action to recover consequential damages for breach of warranty. Kohlenberger, Inc. v. Tyson's Foods, Inc., 256 Ark. 584, 510 S.W.2d 555 (1974).

In the absence of allegations of any effective rejection or revocation of acceptance, purchaser was not entitled to recover purchase price and its damages were limited to the difference at the time of acceptance between the value of the merchandise had it been as warranted and its actual value. Kohlenberger, Inc. v. Tyson's Foods, Inc., 256 Ark. 584, 510 S.W.2d 555 (1974).

Repairs.

If the jury found for the buyer on the question of liability, they must fix the amount of money that would reasonably compensate him for the reasonable expense of necessary repairs to any property which was damaged, if the damage was proximately caused by the breach of the implied warranties by seller, given the relationship between § 4-2-714(2), (3), and subsections (1) and (2)(b) of this section. F.L. Davis Bldrs. Supply, Inc. v. Knapp, 42 Ark. App. 52, 853 S.W.2d 288 (1993).

Use of Goods.

A party is required to take reasonable steps to minimize damages, and under this principle lessee could not continue to use rejected equipment indefinitely and thereby build up consequential damages. KLPR TV, Inc. v. Visual Electronics Corp., 465 F.2d 1382 (8th Cir. 1972).

In action by seller of panels for price of last shipment in which buyer counterclaimed for damages caused by the fact that the panels were of a lighter weight than that ordered, the issue was not acceptance or rejection, but revocation of acceptance, and use of the last shipment despite knowledge of its unsuitability did not bar counterclaim for damages for nonconformity of the original shipment. Jones v. Atkins, 254 Ark. 472, 494 S.W.2d 448 (1973).

In a breach of warranty action when the buyer uses the nonconforming goods, the mere acceptance of the goods does not bar a claim for damages due to nonconformity, when it is reasonable to use the goods without inspection. Hanna Lumber Co. v. Neff, 265 Ark. 462, 579 S.W.2d 95 (1979).

Cited: L.A. Green Seed Co. v. Williams, 246 Ark. 463, 438 S.W.2d 717 (1969); Continental Moss-Gordin, Inc. v. Beaton, 247 Ark. 426, 446 S.W.2d 226 (1969); Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S.W.2d 922 (1970); Ford Motor Co. v. Reid, 250 Ark. 176, 465 S.W.2d 80 (1971); Stimson Tractor Co. v. Heflin, 257 Ark. 263, 516 S.W.2d 379 (1974); Morrow v. First Nat'l Bank, 261 Ark. 568, 550 S.W.2d 429 (1977); Ozark Kenworth, Inc. v. Neidecker, 283 Ark. 196, 672 S.W.2d 899 (1984); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Waterson, 13 Ark. App. 77, 679 S.W.2d 814 (1984); Grand State Mktg. v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 63 Ark. App. 123, 975 S.W.2d 439 (1998).