84-2-717.
Deduction of damages from the price.
The buyer on notifying the seller of his intention to do so may deduct all or any part of the damages resulting from any breach of the contract from any part of the price still due under the same contract.
History:
L. 1965, ch. 564, § 113; January 1, 1966.
KANSAS COMMENT, 1996
This section grants a buyer that accepts the goods a form of self-help remedy. It permits the buyer to deduct from the unpaid purchase price the amount of damages it suffered from the seller's breach. The buyer, of course, must calculate its damages under this section in good faith. The buyer also must give notice to the seller of its intention to exercise this remedy.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The FTC Holder Rule: A Sword and a Shield for Defrauded Consumers," Robert E. Hiatt, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXI, No. 5, 13 (1998).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Whether party may set off admitted debt for products sold against breach of confidentiality damage claim examined. All West Pet Supply v. Hill's Pet Products, 840 F. Supp. 1433, 1441 (1993).
2. Questions of fact regarding damages claimed because of alleged false credit report precluded summary judgment. Maberry v. Said, 911 F. Supp. 1393, 1406 (1995).
Maberry v. Said, 911 F. Supp. 1393 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 7דMaberry contends that his credit status was not affected because (1) the note had been paid off before the credit report issued and (2) he had a right to withhold payment under the language of the note, the FTC holder rule and K.S.A. § 84-2-717. Sometime between March and May…”
All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill's Pet Prods. Div., 840 F. Supp. 1433 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 3דAll West admits it owes Hill’s this amount, but contends that under K.S.A. 84-2-717 6 it is entitled to set off the amount of the debt against the damages All West claims from Hill’s for breach of the confidentiality provision of the distributorship agreement, which also…”
Hope's Architectural Prods., Inc. v. Lundy's Constr., Inc., 781 F. Supp. 711 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 4דThe Court is not persuaded that Lundy’s went beyond making unspecified threats of a back charge for *717 possible damages it would incur because Hopes’ delay.”
Maberry v. Said, 927 F. Supp. 1456 (D. Kan. 1996). · cites it 6דMartin stated that, pursuant to K.S.A. § 84-2-717, plaintiff would make no further payments on the vehicle.”
Kansas Mun. Gas Agency v. Vesta Energy Co., Inc., 843 F. Supp. 1401 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 2ד00, which represents payment withheld by KMGA pursuant to K.S.A. § 84-2-717 for gas that was previously delivered by Vesta.”
Haarslev, Inc. v. Tom's Metal Enter., LLC (D. Kan. 2025). · cites it 2ד§ 84-2-607 (acceptance limits rejection rights, but not right to damages; buyer must give notice of breach within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered breach); K.S.A. § 84-2-717 (buyer may deduct damages from the price, provided notice is given).”
Ag Servs. of Am., Inc. v. DeBruce Grain, Inc., 19 P.3d 188 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2ד84-2-712(2) and K.S.A. 84-2-717. K.S.A. 84-2-712(2) allows a buyer to recover the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price following a seller’s 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.