Sec. 708. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and to the
provisions of IC 26-1-2-723 with respect to proof of market price, 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 IC 26-1-2-710, but less expenses saved in consequence of
the buyer's breach.
(2) If the measure of damages provided in subsection (1) 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 IC 26-1-2-710, due allowance for costs reasonably incurred
and due credit for payments or proceeds of resale.
Formerly: Acts 1963, c.317, s.2-708. As amended by
P.L.152-1986, SEC.167.
Notes of Decisions
Brandeis MacH. & Supply Co., LLC v. Capitol Crane Rental, Inc., 765 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “Indiana Code § 26-1-2-709(8) provides that after a buyer has wrongfully rejected goods, a seller is not entitled to price but shall be awarded damages for nonacceptance under Indiana Code § 26-1-2-708. Damages for nonacceptance are defined by Indiana Code § 26-1-2-1708 as:…”
Todd Heller, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Transp., 819 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “proved the damages to which it is entitled pursuant to Indiana Code § 26-1-2-708. [5] The agreement further provided, "Random field samples from delivered material will be taken periodically and tested for compliance.”
Beijing Auto. Indus. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. Indian Indus., Inc., 105 F. Supp. 3d 879 (S.D. Ind. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Because the Court is denying BAIEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to its breach of contract claim, it will not consider BAIEG’s argument that I.C. § 26-1-2-708(2) is the proper measure of damages for Escalade’s breach of the POCs at this time.”
Watson Water Co., Inc. v. Indiana-Am. Water Co., Inc., 85 N.E.3d 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Next, regarding damages, Watson argues that the trial court erred by concluding that IAWC may recover under the parties’ contract only to the extent of the UCC, because the UCC allows recovery under Indiana Code section 26-1-2-708 (1986). That section provides as follows: (1)…”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-708(1) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-708(2) — 2 cases
Beijing Auto. Indus. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. Indian Indus., Inc., 105 F. Supp. 3d 879 (S.D. Ind. 2015).
“Because the Court is denying BAIEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to its breach of contract claim, it will not consider BAIEG’s argument that I.C. § 26-1-2-708(2) is the proper measure of damages for Escalade’s breach of the POCs at this time.”
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.