NRS
104.2719 Contractual modification or limitation of remedy.
1. Subject to the provisions of
subsections 2 and 3 of this section and of the preceding section on liquidation
and limitation of damages:
(a) The agreement may provide for remedies in
addition to or in substitution for those provided in this article and may limit
or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this article, 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 chapter.
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.
(Added to NRS by 1965,
815)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case:
Newmar Corp. v. McCrary, 309 P.3d 1021 (Nev. 2013).
Newmar Corp. v. McCrary, 309 P.3d 1021 (Nev. 2013).
“NRS 104.2719(2) provides that “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this chapter.”
Bill Stremmel Motors, Inc. v. IDS Leasing Corp., 514 P.2d 654 (Nev. 1973).
“In so finding, the trial court merely placed the burden of proving unconscionability where it properly lies under the principles expressed in the Uniform Commercial Code, NRS 104.2719, which provides in pertinent part: ■ “3.”
Hunt v. Zuffa, LLC (D. Nev. 2019).
· cites it 5× “20 16 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2719 (3). 21 17 ECF No.”
Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Signature Flight Support Corp. (D. Nev. 2024).
· cites it 5× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2719 (3). Generally, a limitation of consequential damages 21 clause is prima facie unconscionable “when [it] preclude[s] consumers from recovering 22 consequential and incidental damages due to personal, rather than purely economic, injuries.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2719(2) — 2 cases
Newmar Corp. v. McCrary, 309 P.3d 1021 (Nev. 2013).
“NRS 104.2719(2) provides that “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this chapter.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2719(3) — 1 case
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.