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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-715 (2026)

Buyer's incidental and consequential damages

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

(1) Incidental damages resulting from the seller's breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation, and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses, or commissions in connection with effecting "cover" and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach.

(2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach include:

(a) Any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and

(b) Injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.

Source: L. 65: p. 1340, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-715.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1976–1991 · leading case: Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 618 P.2d 657 (Colo. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 618 P.2d 657 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 5× “Section 4-2-715(2)(a), C.R.S.1973. Their decision to try to produce at least part of a normal crop, rather than no crop at all, was required by their “duty to lessen, rather than increase,” their damages.”
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.”
Int'l Technical Instruments, Inc. v. Eng'g Measurements Co., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7× “See § 4-2-715(2)(a), C.R.S.1973. Accordingly, the contractual clause of exclusion relied upon by EMCO has no application to this item of damage.”
Cooley v. Big Horn Harvestore Sys., Inc., 813 P.2d 736 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 2× “(1973), provides that where there has been a breach in regard to accepted goods "[i]n a proper case, any incidental and consequential damages under section 4-2-715 may also be recovered.””
Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 574 P.2d 102 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “But under "special circumstances," consequential damages may also be recovered. Section 4-2-714(2) and (3), C.”
W. Conf. Resorts, Inc. v. Pease, 668 P.2d 973 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “Section 4r-2-714, C.R.S.1973. Incidental damage may include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation, and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected.”
Jelen & Son, Inc. v. Bandimere, 801 P.2d 1182 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 3× “Section 4-2-715 specifically allows buyers to recover consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach.”
Wieser v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 596 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Colo. 1984). · cites it 2× “See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-715 (1983). A rule based upon privity is also unsatisfactory, because the UCC contains a provision extending a seller’s express and implied warranties to foreseeable users and consumers of a product.”
Cudahy Co. v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 1212 (D. Colo. 1981). “1973, § 4-2-715(2)(a). 4. Does the legislative classification in § 13-80-127 violate the equal protection guarantees of the state and federal constitutions? Before addressing the constitutional questions, the Court must consider whether Cudahy has standing to raise them.”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Nielsons, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 896 (D. Colo. 1986). “Here, § 4-2-714(3) and § 4-2-715 step in to fill the gap created by the dispute.”
J.A. Balistreri Greenhouses v. Roper Corp., 767 P.2d 736 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Also, if under the circumstances the limited remedy of material replacement failed of its essential purpose by leaving the plaintiffs without a remedy, the plaintiffs could recover them pursuant to § 4-2-719(2) and § 4-2-715, C.R.S. The trial court instructed the jury to…”
Intern. Tech. Instruments v. Eng. Measure., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7× “See § 4-2-715(2)(a), C.R.S.1973. Accordingly, the contractual clause of exclusion relied upon by EMCO has no application to this item of damage.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-715(2): 1 case
Jelen & Son, Inc. v. Bandimere, 801 P.2d 1182 (Colo. 1990). “Section 4-2-715 specifically allows buyers to recover consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-715(2)(a): 6 cases
Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 618 P.2d 657 (Colo. 1980). “Section 4-2-715(2)(a), C.R.S.1973. Their decision to try to produce at least part of a normal crop, rather than no crop at all, was required by their “duty to lessen, rather than increase,” their damages.”
Int'l Technical Instruments, Inc. v. Eng'g Measurements Co., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “See § 4-2-715(2)(a), C.R.S.1973. Accordingly, the contractual clause of exclusion relied upon by EMCO has no application to this item of damage.”
Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 574 P.2d 102 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). “But under "special circumstances," consequential damages may also be recovered. Section 4-2-714(2) and (3), C.”
Cudahy Co. v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 1212 (D. Colo. 1981). “1973, § 4-2-715(2)(a). 4. Does the legislative classification in § 13-80-127 violate the equal protection guarantees of the state and federal constitutions? Before addressing the constitutional questions, the Court must consider whether Cudahy has standing to raise them.”
Intern. Tech. Instruments v. Eng. Measure., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “See § 4-2-715(2)(a), C.R.S.1973. Accordingly, the contractual clause of exclusion relied upon by EMCO has no application to this item of damage.”
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.