California Codes

Cal. Commercial Code § 2719 (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)Subject to the provisions of subdivisions (2) and (3) of this section and of the preceding section on liquidation and limitation of damages,

(a)The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this division and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this division, as by limiting the buyer’s remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of nonconforming goods or parts; and

(b)Resort to a remedy as provided is optional unless the remedy is expressly agreed to be exclusive, in which case it is the sole remedy.

(2)Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this code.

(3)Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is invalid unless it is proved that the limitation is not unconscionable. Limitation of consequential damages where the loss is commercial is valid unless it is proved that the limitation is unconscionable.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: Traxler v. PPG Indus., Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 607 (N.D. Ohio 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Traxler v. PPG Indus., Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 607 (N.D. Ohio 2016). · cites it 4× “See also Cal Com. Code § 2719 cmt.1; Mass. Gen. Laws ch.”

In re Myford Touch Consum. Litig., 291 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Com. Code § 2719 (1)(a) ; Wash. R.C.”

In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 754 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “, Cal. Com.Code § 2719 (U.C.C. § 2-719). Plaintiffs here do not argue, other than briefly quoting Durfee on this point, that the relevant express written warranty fails of its essential purpose within the meaning of Cal.”

Seely v. White Motor Co., 403 P.2d 145 (Cal. 1965). · cites it 2× “(Com. Code, § 2719.) [21] Plaintiff contends that, even though the law of warranty governs the economic relations between the parties, the doctrine of strict liability in tort should be extended to govern physical injury to plaintiff's property, as well as personal injury.”

In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “Code § 7-2-719 (1); Cal. Com. Code § 2719 (1); Colo. Rev. Stat.”

Nat'l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. Directv, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2003). · cites it 3× “22 citing Cal. Com. Code § 2719 (2). 17 California Commercial Code § 2719(2) states “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this case.”

Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “Cal. Com.Code § 2719(3). In its last order, the Court concluded that the limited warranty is not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.”

In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig., 233 F. Supp. 3d 776 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “Essential Purpose Doctrine Rather than focusing on the express terms of Seagate’s warranty, Plaintiffs instead rely primarily on the essential purpose doctrine, described in the Uniform Commercial Code and adopted in all nine states at issue, which provides that “[w]here…”

Frenzel v. Aliphcom, 76 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “” Cal. Com. Code § 2719 . Jawbone’s limited warranty states that a consumer’s “sole and exclusive remedy” is the “repair or re-placefment]” of the defective product.”

In Re Toyota Motor Corp., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “) However, the Court dismissed the claim without prejudice to allow Plaintiffs to replead, if they so chose, that the relevant express written warranty “fail[s] of its essential purpose” within the meaning of Cal. Com. Code § 2719 . (Docket No. 510 at 74-75 & n.”

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Hybrid Brake Mktg., Sales, Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 890 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “Defendants also argue that the California Commercial Code Section 2719(l)(a) and Toyota’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty limit the buyer’s remedy to repairs and adjustments needed to correct defects in materials or workmanship of any part supplied by Toyota. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp.…”

In Re Amica, Inc., 135 B.R. 534 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992). “Cal.Comm. Code § 2719, official comment 1.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2719(1) — 1 case

Bus. Off. Inc. v. Golisano, 275 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2008).

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2719(1)(a) — 1 case

In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 754 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “, Cal. Com.Code § 2719 (U.C.C. § 2-719). Plaintiffs here do not argue, other than briefly quoting Durfee on this point, that the relevant express written warranty fails of its essential purpose within the meaning of Cal.”

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2719(2) — 3 cases

Nat'l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. Directv, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2003). “22 citing Cal. Com. Code § 2719 (2). 17 California Commercial Code § 2719(2) states “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this case.”

Guam Waterworks Auth. v. Badger Meter, Inc. (D. Guam 2023).

Bus. Off. Inc. v. Golisano, 275 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2008).

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2719(3) — 4 cases

Traxler v. PPG Indus., Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 607 (N.D. Ohio 2016). “See also Cal Com. Code § 2719 cmt.1; Mass. Gen. Laws ch.”

Aureal, Inc. v. I/O Magic Corp. (In Re Aureal, Inc.), 279 B.R. 573 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2002).

LP Digit. Solutions v. Signifi Solutions, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 997 (C.D. Cal. 2013).

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2719(l)(a) — 1 case

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.