Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-713 (2026)
Buyer's damages for nondelivery or repudiation
✓ current as of May 2026
- (1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (§ 47-2-723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this chapter (§ 47-2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
- (2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.
Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (2-713).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1974–2002 · leading case: Hurt v. Earnhart, 539 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).
Hurt v. Earnhart, 539 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976). “” From the foregoing statement of positions it is evident that the key issue is when did the plaintiff know that the contract had been breached? The answer to that question, coupled with a reading of T.C.A. § 47-2-713 2 and the stipulations, accompanied by an application of a…”
Ralston Purina Co. v. McNabb, 381 F. Supp. 181 (W.D. Tenn. 1974). “32 (using a March 8th market price, the date Ralston Purina contends that it covered by purchase elsewhere, to calculate damages under T.C.A. § 47-2-713) damages resulting from defendant McNabb’s failure to deliver on the contracts.”
HGI Assoc. v. Mactronics (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-713 (2001). The trial court awarded Plaintiff a judgment in the amount of $18,356.”
Watson & Son Landscaping v. Power Equip. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Consequently, Watson contends that the trial court’s award of damages was appropriate under section 47-2-608 of the UCC,2 which invokes section 47-2-713. Section 47-2-713 provides for 2 Section 47-2-608 states: (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptanc e of a lot or commercial unit…”
Duffy Tool & Stamping, Inc. v. Bosch Auto. Motor Sys., formerly known as BG Auto. Motors, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “93 for the difference between the amount Bosch paid Pax M achine for p lates and the amoun t it had contrac ted to pay Duffy Tool for the sam e pla tes fr om t he start of Pax Machin e’s p erfo rma nce t hrou gh th e origina l con tract 's expiration date.”
Milton Schachter v. Friendley Chevrolet, Cadillac, Toyota, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “T.C.A. § 47-2-713 (1996). The proof showed that Friendly did not want to deliver the Suburban to Schachter because they could receive more money by selling it wholesale to another dealer.”
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.