ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-715 (2026)

Buyer's incidental and consequential damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-715) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-715)
    Sec. 2-715. Buyer's incidental and consequential damages.
    (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: Laws 1961, 1st S.S., p. 7.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2005 · leading case: Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “’ ” The UCC 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 circumstances show proximate…”
Hays v. Gen. Elec. Co., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Ill. 2001). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-715(2)(a) & cmt. 5. Roadmaster argues that it did not discover that the motor was unfit until the first reports of fires in late 1994 and early 1995 and that the earlier customer complaints related only to the treadmill “runaways.”
IMI Norgren Inc. v. D & D Tooling & Mfg., Inc., 247 F. Supp. 2d 966 (N.D. Ill. 2002). · cites it 2× “Breach of Warranty Damages In their motions, the Defendants contend that they cannot be held liable for a bulk of the damages as a matter of law, D & D and Metals Technology state that the vast majority of IMI’s claimed injury is an attempt to recover for consequential damages…”
Magnum Press Automation, Inc. v. Thomas & Betts Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “" 810 ILCS 5/2-715(1) (West 2000). The incidental damages listed are not exhaustive but merely illustrative (810 ILCS Ann.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-715(1) — 1 case
Magnum Press Automation, Inc. v. Thomas & Betts Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “" 810 ILCS 5/2-715(1) (West 2000). The incidental damages listed are not exhaustive but merely illustrative (810 ILCS Ann.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-715(2)(a) — 1 case
Hays v. Gen. Elec. Co., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Ill. 2001). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-715(2)(a) & cmt. 5. Roadmaster argues that it did not discover that the motor was unfit until the first reports of fires in late 1994 and early 1995 and that the earlier customer complaints related only to the treadmill “runaways.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-715(b) — 1 case
IMI Norgren Inc. v. D & D Tooling & Mfg., Inc., 247 F. Supp. 2d 966 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “Breach of Warranty Damages In their motions, the Defendants contend that they cannot be held liable for a bulk of the damages as a matter of law, D & D and Metals Technology state that the vast majority of IMI’s claimed injury is an attempt to recover for consequential damages…”
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.