New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719 (2026)
Contractual modification or limitation of remedy
✓ current as of May 2026
(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 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 non-conforming 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 Act.
(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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 201 F. Supp. 3d 578 (D.N.J. 2016).
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 201 F. Supp. 3d 578 (D.N.J. 2016). “New Jersey law permits parties to a contract to establish an exclusive or limited remedy under the terms of the contract. N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(l)(b).”
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 258 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D.N.J. 2017). “N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(1)(b).. However, “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose,” a remedy may be available under the New Jersey.”
Petri Paint Co., Inc. v. Omg Americas, Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 416 (D.N.J. 2008). “) OMG asserts that the contract clause, entitled “LIMITATIONS OF CLAIMS,” insulates it from incurring any liability resulting from the tender of non-conforming products, outside of replacement or refund. *422 Under the U.C.C., “parties are left free to shape their remedies to…”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “§ 382-A:2-719(l); N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(1); N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-719 (1); N.”
Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Master Engraving Co., 527 A.2d 429 (N.J. 1987). “§ 2-719, Official Comment 3, N.J.StatAnn. § 12A:2-719, at 537 (West 1962).”
Siemens Med. Sys., Inc. v. Nuclear Cardiology Sys., Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1421 (D. Colo. 1996). “2d at 433 (quoting N.J.S.A. § 12A:2-719 cmt. 1 (1962)). If one party is deprived of the benefits of its bargain, the limited remedies have failed of their essential purpose, and the general remedy provisions of the code apply.”
Collins v. Uniroyal, Inc., 315 A.2d 16 (N.J. 1974). “The majority upholds the trial court's excision of that limitation clause, agreeing with its view that the removal was mandated by N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(3), reading as follows: (3) Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable.”
Asp v. Toshiba Am. Consum. Prods., LLC, 616 F. Supp. 2d 721 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “) Therefore, because Plaintiff failed to allow Toshiba an opportunity to repair or replace his DVR under the warranty, Toshiba argues, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty.”
Chatlos Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Cash Register Corp., 479 F. Supp. 738 (D.N.J. 1979). “Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1 following N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719 states: [I]t is of the very essence of a sales contract that at least minimum adequate remedies be available.”
Garden State Food Distributors, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 512 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1981). “N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(1) provides that an agreement may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under Article 2 of the Code, subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section: “the agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for…”
Koch Materials Co. v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 324 (D.N.J. 2002). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12A:2-719(l)(b) (1962); see also Chatlos Sys.”
Viking Yacht Co Inc v. Composites One LLC, 385 F. App'x 195 (3d Cir. 2010). “The Limitation of Remedies Fails of its Essential Purpose Under the U.”
N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(1): 3 cases
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “§ 382-A:2-719(l); N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(1); N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-719 (1); N.”
Garden State Food Distributors, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 512 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1981). “N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(1) provides that an agreement may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under Article 2 of the Code, subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section: “the agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for…”
Chatlos Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Cash Register Corp., 635 F.2d 1081 (3d Cir. 1980).
N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(1)(a): 4 cases
Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Master Engraving Co., 527 A.2d 429 (N.J. 1987). “§ 2-719, Official Comment 3, N.J.StatAnn. § 12A:2-719, at 537 (West 1962).”
Garden State Food Distributors, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 512 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1981). “N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(1) provides that an agreement may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under Article 2 of the Code, subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section: “the agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for…”
Schechter v. Hyundai Motor Am. (D.N.J. 2019).
Thurman Hogan v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024).
N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(1)(b): 4 cases
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 258 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D.N.J. 2017). “N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(1)(b).. However, “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose,” a remedy may be available under the New Jersey.”
Garden State Food Distributors, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 512 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1981). “N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(1) provides that an agreement may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under Article 2 of the Code, subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section: “the agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for…”
Apex Lab Solutions, LLC v. Chemisys Labs., LLC (D.N.J. 2026).
Shore Star Props., LLC v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(2): 14 cases
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 201 F. Supp. 3d 578 (D.N.J. 2016). “New Jersey law permits parties to a contract to establish an exclusive or limited remedy under the terms of the contract. N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(l)(b).”
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 258 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D.N.J. 2017). “N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(1)(b).. However, “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose,” a remedy may be available under the New Jersey.”
Chatlos Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Cash Register Corp., 479 F. Supp. 738 (D.N.J. 1979). “Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1 following N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719 states: [I]t is of the very essence of a sales contract that at least minimum adequate remedies be available.”
Asp v. Toshiba Am. Consum. Prods., LLC, 616 F. Supp. 2d 721 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “) Therefore, because Plaintiff failed to allow Toshiba an opportunity to repair or replace his DVR under the warranty, Toshiba argues, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty.”
Viking Yacht Co Inc v. Composites One LLC, 385 F. App'x 195 (3d Cir. 2010). “The Limitation of Remedies Fails of its Essential Purpose Under the U.”
N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(3): 13 cases
Collins v. Uniroyal, Inc., 315 A.2d 16 (N.J. 1974). “The majority upholds the trial court's excision of that limitation clause, agreeing with its view that the removal was mandated by N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(3), reading as follows: (3) Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable.”
Siemens Med. Sys., Inc. v. Nuclear Cardiology Sys., Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1421 (D. Colo. 1996). “2d at 433 (quoting N.J.S.A. § 12A:2-719 cmt. 1 (1962)). If one party is deprived of the benefits of its bargain, the limited remedies have failed of their essential purpose, and the general remedy provisions of the code apply.”
Garden State Food Distributors, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 512 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1981). “N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(1) provides that an agreement may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under Article 2 of the Code, subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section: “the agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for…”
Bae Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Spacekey Components, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D.N.H. 2013).
Krider Pharmacy & Gifts, Inc. v. Medi-Care Data Sys., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 221 (E.D. Wis. 1992).
N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(l)(a): 2 cases
Asp v. Toshiba Am. Consum. Prods., LLC, 616 F. Supp. 2d 721 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “) Therefore, because Plaintiff failed to allow Toshiba an opportunity to repair or replace his DVR under the warranty, Toshiba argues, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty.”
Siemens Med. Sys., Inc. v. Nuclear Cardiology Sys., Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1421 (D. Colo. 1996). “2d at 433 (quoting N.J.S.A. § 12A:2-719 cmt. 1 (1962)). If one party is deprived of the benefits of its bargain, the limited remedies have failed of their essential purpose, and the general remedy provisions of the code apply.”
N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-719(l)(b): 3 cases
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 201 F. Supp. 3d 578 (D.N.J. 2016). “New Jersey law permits parties to a contract to establish an exclusive or limited remedy under the terms of the contract. N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(l)(b).”
Koch Materials Co. v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 324 (D.N.J. 2002). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12A:2-719(l)(b) (1962); see also Chatlos Sys.”
Asp v. Toshiba Am. Consum. Prods., LLC, 616 F. Supp. 2d 721 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “) Therefore, because Plaintiff failed to allow Toshiba an opportunity to repair or replace his DVR under the warranty, Toshiba argues, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty.”
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.