ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-719 (2026)

Contractual modification or limitation of remedy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-719) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-719)
    Sec. 2-719. Contractual modification or limitation of remedy.
    (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (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 Article and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this Article, as by limiting the buyer's remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of non-conforming 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 Act.
    (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 prima facie unconscionable but limitation of damages where the loss is commercial is not.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1993–2019 · leading case: Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am., 854 N.E.2d 607 (Ill. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am., 854 N.E.2d 607 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 9× “" 810 ILCS 5/2-719 (West 2000). In this case, Hyundai's limited warranty contained both a limitation of remedy and an exclusion of consequential damages.”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “Code § 11-2-719(1); Idaho Code § 28-2-719 (1); 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1); Ind. Code § 26-1-2-719 (1); Me.”
Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach. Ltd., 946 F. Supp. 1358 (N.D. Ill. 1996). · cites it 3× “Lefebvre argues that section 2-719(3) must be read in conjunction with section 2-719(2), which provides: “Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
Est. of Dorothy Da v. Wells Fargo, 633 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2011). “Indeed, [810 ILCS 5/2-719(3) ] itself expressly provides that matters which become known only subsequent to the drafting of the con tract — i.”
Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2008). · cites it 2× “810 ILCS 5/2-719(2). Under § 2-719, if a warranty fails of its essential purpose, “remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
Cognitest Corp., a California Corp., & Cognitest Ltd., an Israeli Corp. v. Riverside Publ'g Co., a Delaware Corp., 107 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 2-719(1), 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1). Riverside argues that Cogni-Test’s retention of the advanced amounts ($160,000) was its exclusive remedy in the event of a pre-publication breach.”
Interlake Packaging Corp. v. Strapex Corp., 842 F. Supp. 304 (N.D. Ill. 1993). · cites it 2× “810 ILCS 5/2-719(1). 5 However, that section further provides that “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
Ellison Tech., Inc. v. Radical Firearms LLC (N.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 7× “A contract “may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this Article, as by limiting the buyer’s remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of non-conforming goods or parts.” 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1)(a).”
MNdustries, Inc. v. MC Mach. Sys., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 2× “” 810 ILCS 5/2-719(2). A limited remedy, however, does not “fail[] ‘of its essential purpose’ whenever a contracting party loses money because a limited remedy provision prevents him from being fully reimbursed for the damages caused by the other party’s breach.”
Bartow v. Ford Motor Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “' 810 ILCS 5/2-719(2) (West 1998)." Lara , 331 Ill.”
Prairie River Home Care, Inc. v. Procura, LLC (D. Minnesota 2019). “2d at 618 (citing 810 ILCS 5/2-719(3)). “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the…”
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am. (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “at 8, quoting 810 ILCS 5/2-719(2) (West 2000). "The cases interpreting section 2-719(2) contemplate and impose a reasonableness standard" in determining whether a limited remedy failed of its essential purpose.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1) — 3 cases
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “Code § 11-2-719(1); Idaho Code § 28-2-719 (1); 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1); Ind. Code § 26-1-2-719 (1); Me.”
Cognitest Corp., a California Corp., & Cognitest Ltd., an Israeli Corp. v. Riverside Publ'g Co., a Delaware Corp., 107 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 1997). “§ 2-719(1), 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1). Riverside argues that Cogni-Test’s retention of the advanced amounts ($160,000) was its exclusive remedy in the event of a pre-publication breach.”
Interlake Packaging Corp. v. Strapex Corp., 842 F. Supp. 304 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “810 ILCS 5/2-719(1). 5 However, that section further provides that “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1)(a) — 1 case
Ellison Tech., Inc. v. Radical Firearms LLC (N.D. Ill. 2019). “A contract “may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this Article, as by limiting the buyer’s remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of non-conforming goods or parts.” 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1)(a).”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-719(2) — 8 cases
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am., 854 N.E.2d 607 (Ill. 2006). “" 810 ILCS 5/2-719 (West 2000). In this case, Hyundai's limited warranty contained both a limitation of remedy and an exclusion of consequential damages.”
Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach. Ltd., 946 F. Supp. 1358 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “Lefebvre argues that section 2-719(3) must be read in conjunction with section 2-719(2), which provides: “Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “810 ILCS 5/2-719(2). Under § 2-719, if a warranty fails of its essential purpose, “remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
Interlake Packaging Corp. v. Strapex Corp., 842 F. Supp. 304 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “810 ILCS 5/2-719(1). 5 However, that section further provides that “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
MNdustries, Inc. v. MC Mach. Sys., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2019). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-719(2). A limited remedy, however, does not “fail[] ‘of its essential purpose’ whenever a contracting party loses money because a limited remedy provision prevents him from being fully reimbursed for the damages caused by the other party’s breach.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-719(3) — 7 cases
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am., 854 N.E.2d 607 (Ill. 2006). “" 810 ILCS 5/2-719 (West 2000). In this case, Hyundai's limited warranty contained both a limitation of remedy and an exclusion of consequential damages.”
Est. of Dorothy Da v. Wells Fargo, 633 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2011). “Indeed, [810 ILCS 5/2-719(3) ] itself expressly provides that matters which become known only subsequent to the drafting of the con tract — i.”
Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach. Ltd., 946 F. Supp. 1358 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “Lefebvre argues that section 2-719(3) must be read in conjunction with section 2-719(2), which provides: “Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “810 ILCS 5/2-719(2). Under § 2-719, if a warranty fails of its essential purpose, “remedy may be had as provided in this Act.”
Cognitest Corp., a California Corp., & Cognitest Ltd., an Israeli Corp. v. Riverside Publ'g Co., a Delaware Corp., 107 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 1997). “§ 2-719(1), 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1). Riverside argues that Cogni-Test’s retention of the advanced amounts ($160,000) was its exclusive remedy in the event of a pre-publication breach.”
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.