Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-708 (2026)

Seller's damages for nonacceptance or repudiation

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-708; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-708, eff. 3/31/1968.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1975–2014 · leading case: GB\ Boots\" Smith Corp. v. Cobb", 860 So. 2d 774 (Miss. 2003).
GB\ Boots\" Smith Corp. v. Cobb", 860 So. 2d 774 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 2× “The appropriate measure of damages is found in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-708 (Rev. 2002), "Seller's damages for nonacceptance of goods or repudiation of the sales contract.”
Huffman Towing, Inc. v. Mainstream Shipyard & Supply, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Miss. 1975). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-708(2) (1972). We have no difficulty in holding that Huffman properly excluded overhead expenses in its computation of lost profits.”
Richard Garziano, Sr. v. Louisiana Log Home, 569 F. App'x 292 (5th Cir. 2014). “at 778-79 (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-708). . Gunn v. Heggins, 964 So.”
G.B. \Boots\" Smith Corp. v. Cobb", 911 So. 2d 421 (2005). · cites it 3× “The appropriate measure of damages is found in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-708 (Rev.2002), “Seller’s damages for nonacceptance of goods or repudiation of the sales contract.”
G. B. \Boots\" Smith Corp. v. Henry R. Cobb (2004). · cites it 2× “The appropriate measure of damages is found in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-708 (Rev.2002), "Seller's damages for nonacceptance of goods or repudiation of the sales contract.”
G. B. \Boots\" Smith Corp. v. Henry R. Cobb (2002). “" The Chancellor awarded the Cobbs the profits they would have received had Smith fully performed under the contract, which is in accord with Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-708 (2). (Rev. 2002).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-708(2) — 2 cases
GB\ Boots\" Smith Corp. v. Cobb", 860 So. 2d 774 (Miss. 2003). “The appropriate measure of damages is found in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-708 (Rev. 2002), "Seller's damages for nonacceptance of goods or repudiation of the sales contract.”
Huffman Towing, Inc. v. Mainstream Shipyard & Supply, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Miss. 1975). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-708(2) (1972). We have no difficulty in holding that Huffman properly excluded overhead expenses in its computation of lost profits.”
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.