UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Act 174 of 1962
440.2711 Nondelivery, repudiation, rejection, or revocation of acceptance; buyer's remedies; security interest in goods.
Sec. 2711.
(1) Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (section 2612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid
(a) "cover" and have damages under the next section as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to the contract; or
(b) recover damages for nondelivery as provided in this article (section 2713).
(2) Where the seller fails to deliver or repudiates the buyer may also
(a) if the goods have been identified recover them as provided in this article (section 2502); or
(b) in a proper case obtain specific performance or replevy or recover the goods as provided in this article (section 2716).
(3) On rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance a buyer has a security interest in goods in his possession or control for any payments made on their price and any expenses reasonably incurred in their inspection, receipt, transportation, care and custody and may hold such goods and resell them in like manner as an aggrieved seller (section 2706).
History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case:
Henderson v. Chrysler Corp., 477 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
Henderson v. Chrysler Corp., 477 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The buyer may resell the goods to recover damages, MCL 440.2711(3); MSA 19.2711(3), or may continue to use the goods in order to mitigate damages.”
Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc, 593 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“Accordingly, the trial court properly granted directed verdicts for defendants on plaintiff’s claims for conversion because they were under no obligation to return the specific money entrusted to them.”
Uganski v. Little Giant Crane & Shovel, Inc., 192 N.W.2d 580 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “VI May the price obtained on the sale of the Little Giant crane on August 30, 1968, serve as evidence of market value of the crane at the time of notice of revocation of acceptance? We turn to the law on revocation of acceptance, MCLA § 440.2711 (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.2711)…”
North Am. Steel Corp. v. Siderius, Inc., 254 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“96, from the original contract price of $1,648,000 and then adding to this amount interest and other charges of the plaintiff in effecting the resales in accordance with MCLA 440.2711(3), 440.2706(1); MSA 19.2711(3), 19.”
United Coin Meter Co. v. Lasala, 296 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “2608, triggering defendants' rights under MCL 440.2711; MSA 19.2711, and MCL 440.2712; MSA 19.”
Valley Die Cast Corp. v. A.C.W., Inc., 181 N.W.2d 303 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 2× “…trial court’s ruling that defendant had not “covered”, pursuant to §§ 2-711 and 2-712 of the Uniform Commercial Code, MCLA §§ 440.2711, 440.2712 (Stat Ann 1964 Eev §§ 19.2711, 19.2712) by installing a brush wash system in place of plaintiff’s pressure system was erroneous and…”
Salamone v. Douglas Marine Corp. (N.D.N.Y. 2021).
· cites it 6× “See Dkt. No. 72-4 at 7-8. Rather, they assert that they are entitled to all sums paid under the contract and the jury failed to award them such.”
S2 Yachts, Inc. v. ERH Marine Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2021).
“LAWS § 440.2711(1) ((specifying “recovering so much of the price has been paid” as one element of damages for seller’s failure to deliver).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2711(1) — 3 cases
Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc, 593 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“Accordingly, the trial court properly granted directed verdicts for defendants on plaintiff’s claims for conversion because they were under no obligation to return the specific money entrusted to them.”
Salamone v. Douglas Marine Corp. (N.D.N.Y. 2021).
“See Dkt. No. 72-4 at 7-8. Rather, they assert that they are entitled to all sums paid under the contract and the jury failed to award them such.”
S2 Yachts, Inc. v. ERH Marine Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2021).
“LAWS § 440.2711(1) ((specifying “recovering so much of the price has been paid” as one element of damages for seller’s failure to deliver).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2711(3) — 2 cases
Henderson v. Chrysler Corp., 477 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“The buyer may resell the goods to recover damages, MCL 440.2711(3); MSA 19.2711(3), or may continue to use the goods in order to mitigate damages.”
North Am. Steel Corp. v. Siderius, Inc., 254 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“96, from the original contract price of $1,648,000 and then adding to this amount interest and other charges of the plaintiff in effecting the resales in accordance with MCLA 440.2711(3), 440.2706(1); MSA 19.2711(3), 19.”
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.