Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 402.714 (2026)
Buyer’s damages for breach in regard to accepted goods
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
402.714(1)(1) Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (s. 402.607 (3)) the buyer 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.
402.714(2)(2) 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.
402.714(3)(3) In a proper case any incidental and consequential damages under s. 402.715 may also be recovered.
402.714 AnnotationThe economic loss doctrine, when it applies, bars recovery in tort for damages resulting from a product not performing as intended, including damages to the product itself or economic losses caused by the defective product. The economic loss doctrine does not bar the recovery of damages for injury to persons or other property resulting from a defective product; in fact s. 402.715 (2) (b) specifically allows it when caused by a breach of warranty. City of Stoughton v. Thomasson Lumber Co., 2004 WI App 6, 269 Wis. 2d 339, 675 N.W.2d 487, 02-2192.
402.714 AnnotationThe measure of damages when a buyer alleges that a product was defective and not worth what was paid for it at the time of acceptance is the difference between the warranted value of the product and its actual value at the time and place of acceptance. The “special circumstances” clause of sub. (2) does not completely bar a breach of warranty claim because the defective product was used for a period of time and later resold for more than its fair market value. However, the price of the defective product upon resale may be relevant as circumstantial evidence of the actual value of the product in its defective condition at the time and place of acceptance. Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 2005 WI 13, 278 Wis. 2d 39, 692 N.W.2d 226, 03-1621.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Mayberry v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2005 WI 13 (Wis. 2005).
Mayberry v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2005 WI 13 (Wis. 2005). “Specifically, the issue before us is whether the "special circumstances" clause in Wis. Stat. § 402.714 (2) (2001-02) [1] requires damages in a breach of warranty action to be calculated based on the difference between the fair market value of the defective product at resale and…”
Lamont v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 806 (E.D. Wis. 2008). “” Wis. Stat. § 402.714 (2). But as already noted, Winnebago was not a party to any transaction with the Lamonts governed by the UCC.”
Grams v. Milk Prods., Inc., 2005 WI 112 (Wis. 2005). “715(2)(b), relating to consequential damages available for any "[i]njury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty." We do not know the scope of the damages for which Cargill may be liable because Cargill is not a party and the contract action is…”
Rich Prods. Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “Section 2-714 allows a buyer to recover as damages “the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable,” including “incidental and consequential damages” as those terms are defined under § 2-715. See,…”
Dry Dock, LLC v. Godfrey Conveyor Co., Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 825 (W.D. Wis. 2010). “Wis. Stat. § 402.714 (2). Plaintiff is not entitled to consequential or incidental damages.”
Lightcap v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 466 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. 1991). “A buyer may recover reasonable damages for the breach of an express or implied warranty under the UCC.”
Carl v. Spickler Enter., Ltd., 478 N.W.2d 48 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “Section 402.714, Stats. According to the Carls' expert witness, the motor home had no value with *626 the defects.”
Trinkle v. Schumacher Co., 301 N.W.2d 255 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “§2-417 (identical to sec. 402.714, Stats.). Section 402.-714, Stats.”
City of Stoughton v. Thomasson Lumber Co., 2004 WI App 6 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 402.714 governs damages for a breach of implied warranty in this case.”
Mayberry v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2004 WI App 64 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 402.714 (2). Both parties submit this as the standard, although they disagree on its application.”
ND Packaging LLC v. Taiwan Endurance Co Ltd (E.D. Wis. 2024). “§ 402.714 (1). Where the seller breaches a warranty, the buyer is titled to “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.”
Mondelez Global LLC v. Associated Milk Producers Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023). “101-3 at 28-40 (Mondelez proposed jury instructions for breach of express and implied warranty); Wis. Stat. §§ 402.714 , 715.) But Mondelez introduced no evidence that it sustained any damages from its purchase of whey powder from AMPI.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.714(2) — 9 cases
Mayberry v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2005 WI 13 (Wis. 2005). “Specifically, the issue before us is whether the "special circumstances" clause in Wis. Stat. § 402.714 (2) (2001-02) [1] requires damages in a breach of warranty action to be calculated based on the difference between the fair market value of the defective product at resale and…”
Lamont v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 806 (E.D. Wis. 2008). “” Wis. Stat. § 402.714 (2). But as already noted, Winnebago was not a party to any transaction with the Lamonts governed by the UCC.”
Rich Prods. Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “Section 2-714 allows a buyer to recover as damages “the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable,” including “incidental and consequential damages” as those terms are defined under § 2-715. See,…”
Lightcap v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 466 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. 1991). “A buyer may recover reasonable damages for the breach of an express or implied warranty under the UCC.”
Trinkle v. Schumacher Co., 301 N.W.2d 255 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “§2-417 (identical to sec. 402.714, Stats.). Section 402.-714, Stats.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.714(3) — 2 cases
Lightcap v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 466 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. 1991). “A buyer may recover reasonable damages for the breach of an express or implied warranty under the UCC.”
ND Packaging LLC v. Taiwan Endurance Co Ltd (E.D. Wis. 2024). “§ 402.714 (1). Where the seller breaches a warranty, the buyer is titled to “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.”
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.