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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2713 (2026)

Nondelivery or repudiation; buyer's damages.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.2713 Nondelivery or repudiation; buyer's damages.

Sec. 2713.

    (1)  Subject to the provisions of this article with respect to proof of market price (section 2723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this article (section 2715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.

    (2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: Mayco Plastics, Inc. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. (In Re Mayco Plastics, Inc.), 389 B.R. 7 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mayco Plastics, Inc. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. (In Re Mayco Plastics, Inc.), 389 B.R. 7 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 7× “Finally, if an aggrieved buyer does not cover upon repudiation by a seller of goods, the aggrieved buyer still has a remedy for damages available under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2713 . (1) Subject to the provisions of this article with respect to proof of market price (section…”
Firwood Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tire, Inc., 96 F.3d 163 (6th Cir. 1996). “2706 (1) (West 1994) (seller's measure of *170 damages is difference between market price and unpaid contract price “together with any incidental damages”) with Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2713 (1) (West 1994) (buyer's measure of damages is difference between market price and…”
Magna Int'l Inc. v. Aludyne Montague, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2024). · cites it 2× “963), and under MCL § 440.2713, a reduction in damages for expenses saved factors into the damage calculation only for repudiation or non- delivery, neither of which applies here because Aludyne did deliver the parts, albeit at an increased price.”
Jane E Meyering v. Porsche Cars North Am. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “When a buyer “justifiably revokes acceptance: 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…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2713(1) — 1 case
Mayco Plastics, Inc. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. (In Re Mayco Plastics, Inc.), 389 B.R. 7 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008). “Finally, if an aggrieved buyer does not cover upon repudiation by a seller of goods, the aggrieved buyer still has a remedy for damages available under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2713 . (1) Subject to the provisions of this article with respect to proof of market price (section…”
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.