California Codes

Cal. Commercial Code § 2714 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1)Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (subdivision (3) of Section 2607) he or she may recover, as damages for any nonconformity of tender, the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach as determined in any manner that is reasonable.

(2)The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.

(3)In a proper case any incidental and consequential damages under Section 2715 also may be recovered.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “California Commercial Code section 2714 provides that “[t]he measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special…”

In re Myford Touch Consum. Litig., 291 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “, that Ford failed to repair the defects despite the opportunity to do so) and, if so, whether Plaintiffs' damages models are admissible evidence of the difference in value between the vehicles as warranted and as accepted.”

Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “) Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (b)(2) provides that, where the buyer accepts the goods, damages include damages available under Commercial Code sections 2714 and 2715 (incidental and consequential damages).”

Gusse v. Damon Corp., 470 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “Code § 1794(b)(2) (measure of buyer’s damages where goods have been accepted includes Sections 2714 and 2715 of the California Commercial Code); Cal. Com.Code § 2714(3) (“In a proper case any incidental and consequential damages under Section 2715 also may be recovered.”

Violet Myers-Armstrong v. Actavis Totowa, LLC, 382 F. App'x 545 (9th Cir. 2010). “” Cal. Com.Code § 2714(2). Myers-Armstrong alleges no such difference.”

James Chung v. FCA US LLC (C.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 3× “Regardless, the Complaint itself demands a different remedy: damages pursuant to Cal. Comm. Code § 2714 , which states: “The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they…”

Separ Plastik San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti v. Edris Plastics MFG., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 3× “California Commercial Code section 2714 specifies the 5 measure of a buyer’s damages with regard to accepted goods.”

Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North Am., Inc. (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “California Commercial Code section 2714 provides that “[t]he measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special…”

Deitsch Plastic Co. Inc. v. Gredale LLC (C.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “Moreover, rather than 12 provide the Court with the elements for a breach of warranty claim, whether express or 13 implied, Gredale relies in its post-trial briefing and proposed Findings of Fact and 14 Conclusions of Law on California Commercial Code section 2714. But section…”

Magic Link Garment Ltd. v. ThirdLove, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Comm. Code § 2714 (1). 21 Here, the court concludes that defendant may assert a lost profits damages theory 22 when pursuing its counterclaims.”

Hastings v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Com. Code § 2714 (2). 22 To state a breach of express warranty claim under subdivisions (1)(a) and (b) of 23 Section 2313 of the California Uniform Commercial Code, a plaintiff must allege that 24 “(1) the seller’s statements constitute an ‘affirmation of fact or promise’…”

Hastings v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 2× “12 Here, the district judge has found that Plaintiff has a remedy under the 13 California Commercial Code, Cal. Com. Code § 2714 (2). The remedy 14 comports with Plaintiff’s claim under the MMWA for violation of an express 15 warranty.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2714(1) — 2 cases

Magic Link Garment Ltd. v. ThirdLove, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020). “” Cal. Comm. Code § 2714 (1). 21 Here, the court concludes that defendant may assert a lost profits damages theory 22 when pursuing its counterclaims.”

Separ Plastik San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti v. Edris Plastics MFG., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2025). “California Commercial Code section 2714 specifies the 5 measure of a buyer’s damages with regard to accepted goods.”

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2714(2) — 3 cases

Violet Myers-Armstrong v. Actavis Totowa, LLC, 382 F. App'x 545 (9th Cir. 2010). “” Cal. Com.Code § 2714(2). Myers-Armstrong alleges no such difference.”

Hastings v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2021). “12 Here, the district judge has found that Plaintiff has a remedy under the 13 California Commercial Code, Cal. Com. Code § 2714 (2). The remedy 14 comports with Plaintiff’s claim under the MMWA for violation of an express 15 warranty.”

Nuguid v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2021).

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2714(3) — 2 cases

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.