Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 402 — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE — SALES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 402.715 (2026)

Buyer’s incidental and consequential damages

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
402.715402.715 Buyer’s incidental and consequential damages.
402.715(1)(1) Incidental damages resulting from the seller’s breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions in connection with effecting cover and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach.
402.715(2)(2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach include:
402.715(2)(a)(a) Any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and
402.715(2)(b)(b) Injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.
402.715 AnnotationLitigation expenses are not recoverable under this section. Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., 83 Wis. 2d 406, 265 N.W.2d 513 (1978).
402.715 AnnotationInterest charges are proper incidental damages. A punitive damages award was upheld. Owens v. Meyer Sales Co., 129 Wis. 2d 491, 385 N.W.2d 234 (Ct. App. 1986).
402.715 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 sub. (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.
402.715 AnnotationDiscussing damages. Afram Export Corp. v. Metallurgiki Halyps, S.A., 772 F.2d 1358 (1985).
402.715 AnnotationSub. (2) makes clear that lost profits from future sales anticipated by the buyer of which the seller had reason to know fall well within the definition of consequential damages as applied to a contract for delivery and sale of goods. Dental Health Products, Inc. v. Sunshine Cleaning General Services, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 3d 1151 (2023).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case: Est. of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2012 WI 70 (Wis. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2012 WI 70 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 5× “Fidelity involved a claim for attorney fees pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 402.715 , in a breach of contract suit where the contract did not address attorney fees.”
Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., 265 N.W.2d 513 (Wis. 1978). · cites it 5× “Thus, although an express warranty excludes consequential damages, when the exclusive contractual remedy fails, the buyer may recover consequential damages under sec. 402.715, Stats., as though the limitation had never existed.”
Grams v. Milk Prods., Inc., 2005 WI 112 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 2× “714 , relating to accepted goods, and § 402.715(2)(b), relating to consequential damages available for any "[i]njury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.”
Rich Prods. Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Wis. 1999). · cites it 2× “Even if the limited remedy fails of its essential purpose, the consequential damages exclusion should remain in effect unless no other effective remedy (for example, incidental damages, Wis. StatAnn. § 402.715(1) or difference-in-value damages, Wis.”
City of Stoughton v. Thomasson Lumber Co., 2004 WI App 6 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “In any event, 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, Wis. Stat. § 402.715 (2)(b) specifically allows it when caused by a breach of warranty.”
Afram Exp. Corp., a Wisconsin Corp. v. Metallurgiki Halyps, S.A., a Foreign Corp., 772 F.2d 1358 (7th Cir. 1985). “It has calculated the interest (some $40,000) that it paid between the date of breach and the date of cover on the amount of the loan used to finance the cars. But it can recover this interest, if at all, only as incidental damages, and not as consequential damages, for under…”
Trinkle v. Schumacher Co., 301 N.W.2d 255 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “The trial court determined that Trinkle incurred the following1 consequential damages (sec. 402.715, Stats.): Cost of goods purchased: $1,275.”
Valiga v. Nat'l Food Co., 206 N.W.2d 377 (Wis. 1973). “(1) Incidental damages resulting from the seller’s breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially rea *245 sonable charges, expenses or .commissions in connection with…”
Owens v. Meyer Sales Co., Inc., 385 N.W.2d 234 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Owens paid $23,950 for the truck, and one of his experts appraised its worth from $14,000 to $16,000. The jury's compensatory damage award of $8,000 is not challenged.”
Cooper Power Sys., Inc. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., 123 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 1997). “2d at 182 ; see Wis. Stat. § 402.715 ; Sunnyslope Grading, Inc.”
Dental Health Prods. Inc v. Sunshine Cleaning Gen. Servs. Inc (E.D. Wis. 2023). · cites it 9× “Wis. Stat. § 402.715 . DHP has not offered any evidence of direct damages flowing from the alleged breach of the Agreement by Sunshine.”
Oregon Potato Co. v. Kerry Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Wis. Stat. § 402.715 (emphasis added). So OPC can recover lost profits caused by each breach that it proves at trial, but it isn’t entitled to base its damages on a scenario in which Kerry continued fulfilling new orders.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 402.715(1) — 3 cases
Rich Prods. Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “Even if the limited remedy fails of its essential purpose, the consequential damages exclusion should remain in effect unless no other effective remedy (for example, incidental damages, Wis. StatAnn. § 402.715(1) or difference-in-value damages, Wis.”
Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., 265 N.W.2d 513 (Wis. 1978). “Thus, although an express warranty excludes consequential damages, when the exclusive contractual remedy fails, the buyer may recover consequential damages under sec. 402.715, Stats., as though the limitation had never existed.”
Owens v. Meyer Sales Co., Inc., 385 N.W.2d 234 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “Owens paid $23,950 for the truck, and one of his experts appraised its worth from $14,000 to $16,000. The jury's compensatory damage award of $8,000 is not challenged.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.715(2) — 1 case
Dental Health Prods. Inc v. Sunshine Cleaning Gen. Servs. Inc (E.D. Wis. 2023). “Wis. Stat. § 402.715 . DHP has not offered any evidence of direct damages flowing from the alleged breach of the Agreement by Sunshine.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.715(2)(b) — 1 case
Grams v. Milk Prods., Inc., 2005 WI 112 (Wis. 2005). “714 , relating to accepted goods, and § 402.715(2)(b), relating to consequential damages available for any "[i]njury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of 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.