Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 355
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-719 (2026)

Contractual modification or limitation of remedy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and of KRS 355.2-718 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 nonconforming 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 chapter.

(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. History: July 1, 1960 History: Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 2-719, effective July 1, 1960.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “2-316), or the seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty (KRS 355.2-719). See generally Note, Legal Control of Warranty Liability Limitation under the Uniform Commercial Code, 63 Va.”
Gooch v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Ky. 1999). · cites it 4× “KRS 355.2-719(2). Furthermore, contracting parties may limit or exclude consequential damages in their agreement unless this would prove unconscionable.”
Dippin' Dots, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 353 F. Supp. 3d 631 (W.D. Ky. 2018). · cites it 11× “See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.2-719 ; N.Y. U.”
Moore v. MacK Trucks, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 888 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty pursuant to KRS 355.2-719. Ford Motor Company v. Mayes, Ky.”
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). · cites it 2× “See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.2-719 (l)(a). Because Smart Beverage agreed to assume the risk of out-of-rotation stock once it was shipped from New Zealand, and because Smart Beverage offers no proof that the stock came out of rotation prior to the time of such shipment, the…”
Marley Cooling Tower Co. v. Caldwell Energy & Env't, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 651 (W.D. Ky. 2003). “KRS 355.2-719(3). In this case, it is undisputed that Caldwell and Marley did just that when they included a clause in their contract which expressly stated "special, indirect, consequential, liquidated and/or punitive damages” were not recoverable.”
Middletown Eng'g Co. v. Climate Conditioning Co., 810 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991). “KRS 355.2-719(2) provides that “where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this chapter.”
Curtis Green D/B/A Green's Toyota of Lexington v. Phillip Frazier (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “” KRS 355.2-719(3). This section of the UCC provides that while consequential damages for breach of warranty may be limited or excluded unless “unconscionable,” such a limitation with respect to damages for personal injuries is “prima facie unconscionable.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-719(1)(a) — 2 cases
Moore v. MacK Trucks, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 888 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty pursuant to KRS 355.2-719. Ford Motor Company v. Mayes, Ky.”
Dippin' Dots, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 353 F. Supp. 3d 631 (W.D. Ky. 2018). “See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.2-719 ; N.Y. U.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-719(2) — 5 cases
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). “2-316), or the seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty (KRS 355.2-719). See generally Note, Legal Control of Warranty Liability Limitation under the Uniform Commercial Code, 63 Va.”
Moore v. MacK Trucks, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 888 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty pursuant to KRS 355.2-719. Ford Motor Company v. Mayes, Ky.”
Gooch v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Ky. 1999). “KRS 355.2-719(2). Furthermore, contracting parties may limit or exclude consequential damages in their agreement unless this would prove unconscionable.”
Dippin' Dots, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 353 F. Supp. 3d 631 (W.D. Ky. 2018). “See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.2-719 ; N.Y. U.”
Middletown Eng'g Co. v. Climate Conditioning Co., 810 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991). “KRS 355.2-719(2) provides that “where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this chapter.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-719(3) — 5 cases
Gooch v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Ky. 1999). “KRS 355.2-719(2). Furthermore, contracting parties may limit or exclude consequential damages in their agreement unless this would prove unconscionable.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). “2-316), or the seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty (KRS 355.2-719). See generally Note, Legal Control of Warranty Liability Limitation under the Uniform Commercial Code, 63 Va.”
Marley Cooling Tower Co. v. Caldwell Energy & Env't, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 651 (W.D. Ky. 2003). “KRS 355.2-719(3). In this case, it is undisputed that Caldwell and Marley did just that when they included a clause in their contract which expressly stated "special, indirect, consequential, liquidated and/or punitive damages” were not recoverable.”
Moore v. MacK Trucks, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 888 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty pursuant to KRS 355.2-719. Ford Motor Company v. Mayes, Ky.”
Curtis Green D/B/A Green's Toyota of Lexington v. Phillip Frazier (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “” KRS 355.2-719(3). This section of the UCC provides that while consequential damages for breach of warranty may be limited or excluded unless “unconscionable,” such a limitation with respect to damages for personal injuries is “prima facie unconscionable.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-719(l)(a) — 2 cases
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). “2-316), or the seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty (KRS 355.2-719). See generally Note, Legal Control of Warranty Liability Limitation under the Uniform Commercial Code, 63 Va.”
Gooch v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Ky. 1999). “KRS 355.2-719(2). Furthermore, contracting parties may limit or exclude consequential damages in their agreement unless this would prove unconscionable.”
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.