Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 4
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-714 (2026)

Buyer's damages for breach in regard to accepted goods

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (subsection (3) of section 4-2-607), he 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 which 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 4-2-715 may also be recovered.

Source: L. 65: p. 1340, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-714.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Cooley v. Big Horn Harvestore Sys., Inc., 813 P.2d 736 (Colo. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cooley v. Big Horn Harvestore Sys., Inc., 813 P.2d 736 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 8× “AOSHPI argues that section 4-2-719(3) establishes the right of contracting parties to limit the general availability of consequential damages established by section 4-2-714 and that the Cooleys did so limit their rights here.”
Converse v. Zinke, 635 P.2d 882 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 3× “Section 4-2-714(2), C.R.S. 1973. Both the Zinkes testified extensively as to equipment which could not be rented by them and to the costs of repair and replacement of certain equipment.”
Duncan v. Schuster-Graham Homes, Inc., 578 P.2d 637 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 3× “The buyer may recover the difference between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted (section 4-2-714, C.R.S. 1973). In addition, as separate damages, he may recover for “injury to person or property proximately resulting…”
Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 574 P.2d 102 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 6× “Section 4-2-714(2), C.R.S.1973. It is this measure which Ford argues is controlling.”
Int'l Technical Instruments, Inc. v. Eng'g Measurements Co., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7× “” Section 4-2-714(1), C.R.S.1973. Section 4-2-607(3)(a), C.”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Nielsons, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 896 (D. Colo. 1986). · cites it 4× “Paragraphs 8 and 12 of Nielsons purchase order conditions, on the other hand, differed by imposing additional liability on Wesco.”
Intern. Tech. Instruments v. Eng. Measure., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7× “" Section 4-2-714(1), C.R.S.1973. Section 4-2-607(3)(a), C.”
Martin v. Ford Motor Co., 292 F.R.D. 252 (E.D. Pa. 2013). “, Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 4-2-714(2); Spring Motors Distribs.”
Smith-Wolf Constr., Inc. v. Hood, 756 P.2d 1027 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Section 4-2-714, C.R.S. See 4 R. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-714:3 (3d ed.”
Colorado Kenworth, Inc. v. Huntley, 537 P.2d 1087 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975). “2d 490 ; sections 4-2-714 and 721, C.R.S.1973 (C.R.”
Gibbons v. Windish, Inc., 662 P.2d 500 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “To compute damages, it applied § 4-2-714(2), C.R.S.1973, 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 would have had if they had been as warranted .”
Molina v. Ford Motor Co. (D. Colo. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 4-2 - 10 Indeed, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-714 (2)-(3) specifically 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…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-714(1): 2 cases
Int'l Technical Instruments, Inc. v. Eng'g Measurements Co., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “” Section 4-2-714(1), C.R.S.1973. Section 4-2-607(3)(a), C.”
Intern. Tech. Instruments v. Eng. Measure., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “" Section 4-2-714(1), C.R.S.1973. Section 4-2-607(3)(a), C.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-714(2): 4 cases
Converse v. Zinke, 635 P.2d 882 (Colo. 1981). “Section 4-2-714(2), C.R.S. 1973. Both the Zinkes testified extensively as to equipment which could not be rented by them and to the costs of repair and replacement of certain equipment.”
Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 574 P.2d 102 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). “Section 4-2-714(2), C.R.S.1973. It is this measure which Ford argues is controlling.”
Martin v. Ford Motor Co., 292 F.R.D. 252 (E.D. Pa. 2013). “, Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 4-2-714(2); Spring Motors Distribs.”
Gibbons v. Windish, Inc., 662 P.2d 500 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “To compute damages, it applied § 4-2-714(2), C.R.S.1973, 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 would have had if they had been as warranted .”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-714(3): 4 cases
Cooley v. Big Horn Harvestore Sys., Inc., 813 P.2d 736 (Colo. 1991). “AOSHPI argues that section 4-2-719(3) establishes the right of contracting parties to limit the general availability of consequential damages established by section 4-2-714 and that the Cooleys did so limit their rights here.”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Nielsons, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 896 (D. Colo. 1986). “Paragraphs 8 and 12 of Nielsons purchase order conditions, on the other hand, differed by imposing additional liability on Wesco.”
Int'l Technical Instruments, Inc. v. Eng'g Measurements Co., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “” Section 4-2-714(1), C.R.S.1973. Section 4-2-607(3)(a), C.”
Intern. Tech. Instruments v. Eng. Measure., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “" Section 4-2-714(1), C.R.S.1973. Section 4-2-607(3)(a), 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.