Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2708

Nonacceptance or repudiation; seller's damages.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.2708 Nonacceptance or repudiation; seller's damages.

Sec. 2708.

    (1)  Subject to subsection (2) and to the provisions of this article with respect to proof of market price (section 2723), 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 this article (section 2710), 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 this article (section 2710), due allowance for costs reasonably incurred and due credit for payments or proceeds of resale.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2022 · leading case: Green Leaf Nursery, Inc. v. Kmart Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Green Leaf Nursery, Inc. v. Kmart Corp. (2007) mied · cites it 7× “If this remedy is inadequate, the UCC provides that the seller can recover “the profit (including reasonable overhead) which the seller would have made from full performance by the buyer, together with any incidental damages .”
Great Northern Packaging, Inc. v. General Tire & Rubber Co. (1986) michctapp · cites it 3× “MCL 440.2708; MSA 19.2708. Accordingly, there may be a partial overlap of damages.”
Detroit Power Screwdriver v. Ladney (1970) michctapp · cites it 3× “10 See, also, 21 MCLA § 440.2708, Practice Commentary, by Roy L.”
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller (1982) michctapp · cites it 2× “2708(2), where the measure of damages is inadequate to put the seller in as good a position as performance would have done, the seller's measure of damages is based upon his lost profits in connection with the particular sale.”
Indemnity Marine Assurance Co. v. Lipin Robinson Warehouse Corp. (1980) michctapp · cites it 3× “The Article 2 statutory provision cited by both parties, MCL 440.2708; MSA 19.2708, pertains to a seller’s damages for nonacceptance or repudiation by a buyer.”
O'Sullivan Corp. v. Duro-Last, Inc. (2001) ca6 “O’Sullivan’s labor costs Under Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2708 (2), the measure of a seller’s profit may be calculated by taking “the profit (including reasonable overhead) which the seller would have made from full performance by the buyer, together with any incidental damages .”
KLT Industries, Inc. v. Eaton Corp. (1981) mied “§ 440.2708, M.S.A. § 19.-2708; Detroit Power Screwdriver v.”
Haken v. Scheffler (1970) michctapp · cites it 3× “Defendant claims MCLA § 440.2708 is controlling as to damages.”
Dinsmore Instrument Co. v. Bombardier, Inc. (1998) mied · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 440.2708 , 440.2714 (West 1994) (“§ 2-708,” and “§ 2-714”).”
Product Solutions International Inc v. PB Products LLC (2022) mied · cites it 6× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2708 (1). The seller may also recover incidental damages, less any expenses saved as the result of the buyer’s breach.”
Detroit Power Screwdriver Co. v. Ladney (1972) michctapp · cites it 2× “2708(2); however, if it did not so find, then it was to dismiss the action due to plaintiff’s failure of proof under UCC § 2708(1), MCLA 440.2708(1); MSA 19.2708(1). Upon remand the trial court did not find whether the machine was a specialty item, but found that plaintiff’s…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2708(1) — 3 cases
Green Leaf Nursery, Inc. v. Kmart Corp. (2007) mied “If this remedy is inadequate, the UCC provides that the seller can recover “the profit (including reasonable overhead) which the seller would have made from full performance by the buyer, together with any incidental damages .”
Detroit Power Screwdriver v. Ladney (1970) michctapp “10 See, also, 21 MCLA § 440.2708, Practice Commentary, by Roy L.”
Detroit Power Screwdriver Co. v. Ladney (1972) michctapp “2708(2); however, if it did not so find, then it was to dismiss the action due to plaintiff’s failure of proof under UCC § 2708(1), MCLA 440.2708(1); MSA 19.2708(1). Upon remand the trial court did not find whether the machine was a specialty item, but found that plaintiff’s…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2708(2) — 5 cases
Green Leaf Nursery, Inc. v. Kmart Corp. (2007) mied “If this remedy is inadequate, the UCC provides that the seller can recover “the profit (including reasonable overhead) which the seller would have made from full performance by the buyer, together with any incidental damages .”
Great Northern Packaging, Inc. v. General Tire & Rubber Co. (1986) michctapp “MCL 440.2708; MSA 19.2708. Accordingly, there may be a partial overlap of damages.”
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller (1982) michctapp “2708(2), where the measure of damages is inadequate to put the seller in as good a position as performance would have done, the seller's measure of damages is based upon his lost profits in connection with the particular sale.”
Indemnity Marine Assurance Co. v. Lipin Robinson Warehouse Corp. (1980) michctapp “The Article 2 statutory provision cited by both parties, MCL 440.2708; MSA 19.2708, pertains to a seller’s damages for nonacceptance or repudiation by a buyer.”
Detroit Power Screwdriver Co. v. Ladney (1972) michctapp “2708(2); however, if it did not so find, then it was to dismiss the action due to plaintiff’s failure of proof under UCC § 2708(1), MCLA 440.2708(1); MSA 19.2708(1). Upon remand the trial court did not find whether the machine was a specialty item, but found that plaintiff’s…”
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.