K.S.A. » Chapter 84
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 84-1-106 (2026)

Use of singular and plural; gender

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

84-1-106. Use of singular and plural; gender. In the uniform commercial code, unless the statutory context otherwise requires:

(1) Words in the singular number include the plural, and those in the plural include the singular; and

(2) words of any gender also refer to any other gender.

History: L. 2007, ch. 89, § 6; July 1, 2008.

KANSAS COMMENT, 1996

1. Subsection (1) states a general policy of damages under the Code, and reaffirms the standard rule that the object of damages for breach of contract is compensation of the injured party, not deterrence or punishment of the breaching party. Full compensation is to be allowed, and the remedies are to be "liberally administered" so as to protect the injured party's expectation. See, e.g., Stair v. Gaylord, 232 K. 765, 659 P.2d 178 (1983) (relying on this section to conclude that "[u]nder the UCC consequential damages need not be proven with any particular degree of certainty"); Cricket Alley Corp. v. Data Terminal Sys., Inc., 240 K. 661, 732 P.2d 719 (1987) (same); see also Westgate State Bank v. Clark, 231 K. 81, 642 P.2d 961 (1982), in which the court refused to bar absolutely recovery of a deficiency judgment from a commercial debtor when the secured creditor resells the collateral in a non-commercially reasonable manner. The court relied in part on the policy of this section that to deny such a deficiency absolutely would be punitive.

2. Kansas courts generally have not been receptive to the argument that subsection (1) acts as an independent limit on the measure of damages otherwise available under specific sections of the Code. Thus, in Tongish v. Thomas, 251 K. 728, 840 P.2d 471 (1992), the Kansas Supreme Court rejected a seller's argument that this section precluded a buyer from recovering market damages under section 84-2-713 when the buyer's actual loss was much lower. The court permitted the buyer to recover market damages of roughly $12 per hundredweight of sunflower seeds, even though the buyer's profit, under a resale contract, was only to be a 55 cent per hundredweight handling fee. See also Wendling v. Puls, 227 K. 780, 610 P.2d 580 (1980) (permitting seller that has resold goods to recover higher market damages under section 84-2- 708). Compare 84-2a-501(4) & 1996 Kansas Comment 3 to that section (using section 84-1-106(1) as basis for finding remedies under Article 2a not cumulative).

3. The general policy of this section is that punitive damages are not available under the Code. Thus, in cases involving sales contracts subject to Article 2, "[b]reach of contract, standing alone, does not call for punitive damages even if the breach is intentional and unjustified." Farrell v. General Motors Corp., 249 K. 231, 815 P.2d 538 (1991). Only if some independent tort is present can the aggrieved party recover punitive damages. See Dold v. Sherow, 220 K. 350, 552 P.2d 945 (1976); Cantrell v. Amarillo Hardware Co., 226 K. 681, 602 P.2d 1326 (1979); see also Equitable Life Leasing Corp. v. Abbick, 243 K. 513, 757 P.2d 304 (1988) (computer equipment lease).

Revisor's Note:

Former section 84-1-106 was repealed by L. 2007, ch. 89, § 49 and the number reassigned to the current text.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Recovery of damages for breach of warranty, Curtis D. Terflinger, 14 K.L.R. 355, 356 (1965).

"Punitive Damages in Contract Actions—Are the Exceptions Swallowing the Rule?" Randy L. Sassaman, 20 W.L.J. 86, 96 (1980).

"Commercial Law—Commercially Unreasonable Foreclosure Sales in the Context of a Surety Relationship—United States v. Lattauzio," John S. Clifford, 34 K.L.R. 175, 184 (1985).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Secured creditor sale of collateral not in "commercially reasonable manner"; deficiency not barred; test. Westgate State Bank v. Clark, 231 Kan. 81, 86, 642 P.2d 961 (1982).

2. Liquidated damages clause, damages for breach of contract, recovery of lost profits examined. Kvassay v. Murray, 15 Kan. App. 2d 426, 432, 808 P.2d 896 (1991).

3. Specific damage remedy provisions of K.S.A. 84-2-713 prevail over general provisions herein when seller breaches contract for sale of goods. Tongish v. Thomas, 16 Kan. App. 2d 809, 813, 829 P.2d 916 (1992); Aff'd. 251 Kan. 728, 734, 840 P.2d 471 (1992).

4. Debtor not entitled to possession of collateral even if he prevailed on wrongful possession claim against creditor. Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp., 820 F. Supp. 562, 563, 565 (1993).

5. Whether debtor who sought replevin resulting from repossession breach of peace is precluded from asserting conversion claim examined. Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp., 877 F. Supp. 1439, 1450 (1994).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1983–2007 · leading case: Tongish v. Thomas, 840 P.2d 471 (Kan. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tongish v. Thomas, 840 P.2d 471 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 9× “: This case presents the narrow issue of whether damages arising from the nondelivery of contracted-for sunflower seeds should be computed on the basis of K.S.A. 84-1-106 or *729 K.S.A. 84-2-713. That is, whether the buyer is entitled to its actual loss of profit or the…”
Stair v. Gaylord, 659 P.2d 178 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 2× “Indeed, one purpose of subsection (1) of K.S.A. 84-1-106 “is to reject any doctrine that damages must be calculable with mathematical accuracy.”
Olathe Mfg., Inc. v. Browning Mfg., 915 P.2d 86 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 2× “In making this argument, Olathe points to K.S.A. 84-1-106, which allows for remedies to be liberally administered.”
Kvassay v. Murray, 808 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “]” There is no reason the standard should be any different under the UCC section which specifically allows lost profits as damages (84-2-708) and which requires that remedies under the act be “liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a…”
Clark v. Assocs. Com. Corp., 877 F. Supp. 1439 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 4× “This conclusion is dictated by the terms of K.S.A. § 84-1-106(1), 8 which provides: The remedies provided by this act shall be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed but neither…”
Tongish v. Thomas, 829 P.2d 916 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 7× “Tongish argues that the trial court was correct and cites K.S.A. 84-1-106 as support for the contention that, a party should be placed in as good a position as it would be in had the other .”
Cricket Alley Corp. v. Data Terminal Sys., Inc., 732 P.2d 719 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “Indeed, one purpose of subsection (1) of K.S.A. 84-1-106 ‘is to reject any doctrine that damages must be calculable with mathematical accuracy.”
Fisherman Surgical Instruments, LLC v. Tri-Anim Health Servs., Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 84-1-106. Under the Distribution Agreement, Fisherman was only entitled to 90 *1184 days notice in the event Tri-anim terminated the agreement without cause.”
Poindexter v. Morse Chevrolet, Inc., 270 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 4× “8 K.S.A. § 84-1-106. Plaintiffs’ interpretation of K.”
Rodriguez v. Learjet, Inc., 946 P.2d 1010 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “K.S.A. 84-1-106; Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Electric Co-op Ass'n, 251 Kan.”
Clark v. Assocs. Com. Corp., 820 F. Supp. 562 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 84-1-106(1), which provides: The remedies provided by this act shall be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed but neither consequential or special nor penal damages may be had…”
Sharp Elec. Corp. v. Lodgistix, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 370 (D. Kan. 1992). “See K.S.A. 84-1-106. As a final point, the court found Sharp’s witnesses more credible, and its evidence more persuasive, than the witness and evidence produced by Lodgistix.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 84-1-106(1) — 6 cases
Clark v. Assocs. Com. Corp., 877 F. Supp. 1439 (D. Kan. 1994). “This conclusion is dictated by the terms of K.S.A. § 84-1-106(1), 8 which provides: The remedies provided by this act shall be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed but neither…”
Tongish v. Thomas, 840 P.2d 471 (Kan. 1992). “: This case presents the narrow issue of whether damages arising from the nondelivery of contracted-for sunflower seeds should be computed on the basis of K.S.A. 84-1-106 or *729 K.S.A. 84-2-713. That is, whether the buyer is entitled to its actual loss of profit or the…”
Stair v. Gaylord, 659 P.2d 178 (Kan. 1983). “Indeed, one purpose of subsection (1) of K.S.A. 84-1-106 “is to reject any doctrine that damages must be calculable with mathematical accuracy.”
Kvassay v. Murray, 808 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “]” There is no reason the standard should be any different under the UCC section which specifically allows lost profits as damages (84-2-708) and which requires that remedies under the act be “liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a…”
Cricket Alley Corp. v. Data Terminal Sys., Inc., 732 P.2d 719 (Kan. 1987). “Indeed, one purpose of subsection (1) of K.S.A. 84-1-106 ‘is to reject any doctrine that damages must be calculable with mathematical accuracy.”
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.