(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section and to the provisions of this article with respect to proof of market price (section 4-2-723), the measure of damages for nonacceptance 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 article (section 4-2-710), but less expenses saved in consequence of the buyer's breach.
(2) If the measure of damages provided in subsection (1) of this section 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 article (section 4-2-710), due allowance for costs reasonably incurred and due credit for payments or proceeds of resale. Source: L. 65: p. 1338, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-708.
Notes of Decisions
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Chemco, Inc., 854 P.2d 1232 (Colo. 1993).
· cites it 3× “However, we disagree with CIG’s assertion that because the contract provides for alternative performances the remedy for its breach must be determined exclusively by the Uniform Commercial Code’s remedy provisions, specifically section 4-2-708, 2 C.R.S. (1992). The parties may…”
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Chemco, Inc., 833 P.2d 786 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Thus, CIG contends that the proper measure of damages is the difference between the market price and the contract price less expenses saved or, alternatively, lost profit as provided by § 4-2-708, C.R.S., of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the common law.”
Cal-Circuit Abco, Inc. v. Solbourne Comput., Inc., 848 F. Supp. 1506 (D. Colo. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Therefore, according to Cal-Abco, the arbitrator exceeded his authority when he based his damage award upon § 4r-2-709 rather than § 4-2-708. Cal-Abco’s argument fails because it is based upon a false premise.”
Jelen & Son, Inc. v. Bandimere, 801 P.2d 1182 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 2× “n breached the contract by not accepting the goods, Bandi-mere could: (a) Withhold delivery of such goods; (b) Stop delivery by any bailee as hereafter provided (section 4 — 2—705); (c) Proceed under section 4-2-704 respecting goods still unidentified to the contract; (d) Resell…”
Hi-Tec Plastics, Inc. v. AMI, INC., 886 F. Supp. 774 (D. Colo. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Hi-Tec asserts the basis for its claim for lost profits is Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-708(2) which was created for those instances when the resale of the product by the seller leaves the non-breaching party (in this case, allegedly Hi-Tec) in a worse situation than it would have been…”
Smith-Wolf Constr., Inc. v. Hood, 756 P.2d 1027 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Section 4-2-708(2), C.R.S. In our view, recovery of such overhead expenses is also available to buyers in those instances where § 4-2-715, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-708(1) — 1 case
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Chemco, Inc., 854 P.2d 1232 (Colo. 1993).
“However, we disagree with CIG’s assertion that because the contract provides for alternative performances the remedy for its breach must be determined exclusively by the Uniform Commercial Code’s remedy provisions, specifically section 4-2-708, 2 C.R.S. (1992). The parties may…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-708(2) — 2 cases
Hi-Tec Plastics, Inc. v. AMI, INC., 886 F. Supp. 774 (D. Colo. 1995).
“Hi-Tec asserts the basis for its claim for lost profits is Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-708(2) which was created for those instances when the resale of the product by the seller leaves the non-breaching party (in this case, allegedly Hi-Tec) in a worse situation than it would have been…”
Smith-Wolf Constr., Inc. v. Hood, 756 P.2d 1027 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“Section 4-2-708(2), C.R.S. In our view, recovery of such overhead expenses is also available to buyers in those instances where § 4-2-715, C.”
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.