N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 25
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-714 (2026)

Buyer's damages for breach in regard to accepted goods

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 25 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (subsection (c) of G.S. 25-2-607) he may recover as damages for any nonconformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller's breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable.

(b) The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.

(c) In a proper case any incidental and consequential damages under the next section [G.S. 25-2-715] may also be recovered.  (1965, c. 700, s. 1; 2025-25, s. 112.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case: Alberti v. Manufactured Homes, Inc., 407 S.E.2d 819 (N.C. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alberti v. Manufactured Homes, Inc., 407 S.E.2d 819 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 12× “N.C.G.S. § 25-2-714. The UCC allows courts to utilize other measures for damages if justified by the circumstances, id.”
Riley v. Ken Wilson Ford, Inc., 426 S.E.2d 717 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 9× “Instead, *173 plaintiffs are entitled to damages for breach of warranty as set forth in section 25-2-714. See Lyon v. Shelter Resources Corp.”
Warren v. Guttanit, Inc., 317 S.E.2d 5 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “But since express and implied warranties were made and breached, G.S. 25-2-714 and G.S. 25-2-715 also affect the damages that plaintiffs are entitled to recover.”
Williams v. Hyatt Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 269 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 5× “The general measure of damages for breach of warranty allowed under G.S. 25-2-714 is “the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show…”
Rodd v. W. H. King Drug Co., 228 S.E.2d 35 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “25-2-714(2) as follows: “The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate…”
ITT-Indus. Credit Co. v. Milo Concrete Co., 229 S.E.2d 814 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Milo seeks to assert its claim for breach of warranty under G.S. 25-2-714 after acceptance of the goods.”
Stutts v. Green Ford, Inc., 267 S.E.2d 919 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “The general measure of damages for breach of warranty allowed by the Uniform Commercial Code under G.S. 25-2-714 is “the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless…”
McDonald Bros., Inc. v. Tinder Wholesale, LLC, 395 F. Supp. 2d 255 (M.D.N.C. 2005). · cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 25-2-714 to -715; Va.Code Ann.”
Bailey v. LeBeau, 339 S.E.2d 460 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “G.S. 25-2-714(2); Williams v. Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.”
Farrar & Farrar Dairy, Inc v. Miller-St. Nazianz, Inc, 477 F. App'x 981 (4th Cir. 2012). “The court concluded that since Farrar chose to remedy the breach by accepting replacement bags, it was not entitled to any additional remedy under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-714 . As for Miller’s exclusion of consequential damages, the district court noted it was valid unless it was…”
Whitehurst v. Crisp R v. Ctr., Inc., 358 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “25-2-711(1), G.S. 25-2-714 and G.S. 25-2-715; and the decisions that should be consulted include Davis v.”
Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 186 S.E.2d 161 (N.C. 1972). “On the other hand, if defendant did not reject but accepted the mobile home, and there has been no revocation of acceptance, she is obligated to pay the balance due on the contract price, and she is limited on her counterclaim to recovery of damages for breach of implied…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-714(1) — 2 cases
Warren v. Guttanit, Inc., 317 S.E.2d 5 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). “But since express and implied warranties were made and breached, G.S. 25-2-714 and G.S. 25-2-715 also affect the damages that plaintiffs are entitled to recover.”
Honda Jet Ltd., L.L.C. v. Honda Aircraft Co., LLC (M.D.N.C. 2021).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-714(2) — 16 cases
Riley v. Ken Wilson Ford, Inc., 426 S.E.2d 717 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). “Instead, *173 plaintiffs are entitled to damages for breach of warranty as set forth in section 25-2-714. See Lyon v. Shelter Resources Corp.”
Rodd v. W. H. King Drug Co., 228 S.E.2d 35 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976). “25-2-714(2) as follows: “The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate…”
Williams v. Hyatt Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 269 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). “The general measure of damages for breach of warranty allowed under G.S. 25-2-714 is “the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show…”
Bailey v. LeBeau, 339 S.E.2d 460 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986). “G.S. 25-2-714(2); Williams v. Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.”
ITT-Indus. Credit Co. v. Milo Concrete Co., 229 S.E.2d 814 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976). “Milo seeks to assert its claim for breach of warranty under G.S. 25-2-714 after acceptance of the goods.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-714(3) — 2 cases
Riley v. Ken Wilson Ford, Inc., 426 S.E.2d 717 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). “Instead, *173 plaintiffs are entitled to damages for breach of warranty as set forth in section 25-2-714. See Lyon v. Shelter Resources Corp.”
Piedmont Plastics, Inc. v. Mize Co., Inc., 293 S.E.2d 219 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).
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.