Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719 (2026)
Contractual modification or limitation of remedy
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section and of Section 75-2-718 on liquidation and limitation of damages,
- (a) The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this chapter and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this chapter, 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 code.
- (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.
- (4) Any limitation of remedies which would deprive the buyer of a remedy to which he may be entitled for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose in a sale to a consumer, as defined in Section 75-1-201(b)(11), of consumer goods, as defined in Section 75-9-102(a)(23), shall be prohibited.
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-719; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-719; Laws, 1976, ch. 385, § 4; Laws, 1998, ch. 513, § 4, eff. 7/1/1998.
Amended by Laws, 2014, ch. 312, HB 96, 4, eff. 7/1/2014.
Amended by Laws, 2013, ch. 451, SB 2609, 2, eff. 7/1/2013.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Mississippi Chem. Corp. v. Dresser-Rand Co., 287 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2002).
Mississippi Chem. Corp. v. Dresser-Rand Co., 287 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2002). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719 (l)(a). But if the repair or replacement remedy fails its essential purpose, then the.”
Mercury Marine v. Clear River Const. Co., 839 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2003). “Under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(2), "Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Code.”
George A. MacKenzie v. Chrysler Corp., 607 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir. 1979). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(3) (1972) (as amended).”
McKee v. Bowers Window & Door Co., 64 So. 3d 926 (Miss. 2011). “See also Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(4) (Rev.2002) (“[A]ny limitation of remedies which would deprive the buyer of a remedy to which he may be entitled for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose shall be prohibited.”
Fedders Corp. v. Boatright, 493 So. 2d 301 (Miss. 1986). “See also: Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719 (4) (1972). Damages for breach of warranty are covered by two sections of the code.”
Beck Enter., Inc. v. Hester, 512 So. 2d 672 (Miss. 1987). “§ 11-7-18 (1972); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719 (4) (1972). See also, Editor's note to Miss.”
Guerdon Indus., Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So. 2d 1202 (Miss. 1988). “1987), Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719 (4). The record clearly shows that the warranty supplied by Guerdon was a limited one.”
Gast v. Rogers-Dingus Chevrolet, 585 So. 2d 725 (Miss. 1991). “1990); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719 (4) (Supp. 1990).”
Steel Dynamics Columbus, LLC v. Altech Env't USA Corp., 273 F. Supp. 3d 627 (N.D. Miss. 2017). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719 (4) (2011) (emphasis added) (effective July 1,1998).”
Capital Assoc., Inc. v. Sally Southland, Inc., 529 So. 2d 640 (Miss. 1988). “§ 11-7-18 (1972), Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719 (1972). Nothing I say here should be taken to suggest that the same result should follow in cases dealing with commercial paper and alleged holders in due course.”
East Mississippi Elec. Power Ass'n v. Porcelain Prods. Co., 757 F. Supp. 748 (S.D. Miss. 1990). “Knox/Porcelain urge that Mississippi’s commercial code, which prohibits disclaimer of implied warranties, see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(4) (1972), should be held applicable because the sales of the insulators to plaintiffs bear a reasonable relation to Mississippi, see Miss.”
Price v. Litton Sys. Inc., 784 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1986). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(3). See W. Page Keeton, D.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719(2) — 1 case
Mercury Marine v. Clear River Const. Co., 839 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2003). “Under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(2), "Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Code.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719(3) — 2 cases
George A. MacKenzie v. Chrysler Corp., 607 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir. 1979). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(3) (1972) (as amended).”
Price v. Litton Sys. Inc., 784 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1986). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(3). See W. Page Keeton, D.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719(4) — 3 cases
McKee v. Bowers Window & Door Co., 64 So. 3d 926 (Miss. 2011). “See also Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(4) (Rev.2002) (“[A]ny limitation of remedies which would deprive the buyer of a remedy to which he may be entitled for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose shall be prohibited.”
Mercury Marine v. Clear River Const. Co., 839 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2003). “Under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(2), "Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Code.”
East Mississippi Elec. Power Ass'n v. Porcelain Prods. Co., 757 F. Supp. 748 (S.D. Miss. 1990). “Knox/Porcelain urge that Mississippi’s commercial code, which prohibits disclaimer of implied warranties, see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(4) (1972), should be held applicable because the sales of the insulators to plaintiffs bear a reasonable relation to Mississippi, see Miss.”
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.