2025 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 4 - Uniform Commercial Code (Arts. 1 - 13)
Article 2 - Sales (Pts. 1 - 7)
Part 7 - Remedies (§§ 4-2-701 - 4-2-725)
§ 4-2-708. Seller's damages for nonacceptance or repudiation

• (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section and to the provisions of this article with respect to proof of market price (section 4-2-723), the measure of damages for nonacceptance or repudiation by the buyer is the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price, together with any incidental damages provided in this article (section 4-2-710), but less expenses saved in consequence of the buyer’s breach.

• (2) If the measure of damages provided in subsection (1) of this section is inadequate to put the seller in as good a position as performance would have done, then the measure of damages is the profit (including reasonable overhead) which the seller would have made from full performance by the buyer, together with any incidental damages provided in this article (section 4-2-710), due allowance for costs reasonably incurred and due credit for payments or proceeds of resale.

History

Source: L. 65: P. 1338, § 1. C.R.S. 1963:§ 155-2-708.

Annotations

Commentary

OFFICIAL COMMENT Prior Uniform Statutory Provision:

Section 64, Uniform Sales Act.

Changes: Rewritten.

Purposes of Changes: To make it clear that:

1. The prior uniform statutory provision is followed generally in setting the current market price at the time and place for tender as the standard by which damages for non-acceptance are to be determined. The time and place of tender is determined by reference to the section on manner of tender of delivery, and to the sections on the effect of such terms as FOB, FAS, CIF, C & F, Ex Ship and No Arrival, No Sale.

In the event that there is no evidence available of the current market price at the time and place of tender, proof of a substitute market may be made under the section on determination and proof of market price. Furthermore, the section on the admissibility of market quotations is intended to ease materially the problem of providing competent evidence.

2. The provision of this section permitting recovery of expected profit including reasonable overhead where the standard measure of damages is inadequate, together with the new requirement that price actions may be sustained only where resale is impractical, are designed to eliminate the unfair and economically wasteful results arising under the older law when fixed price articles were involved. This section permits the recovery of lost profits in all appropriate cases, which would include all standard priced goods. The normal measure there would be list price less cost to the dealer or list price less manufacturing cost to the manufacturer. It is not necessary to a recovery of “profit ” to show a history of earnings, especially of a new venture is involved.

3. In all cases the seller may recover incidental damages.

Cross References:

Point 1: Sections 4-2-319 through 4-2-324, 4-2-503, 4-2-723 and 4-2-724.

Point 2: Section 4-2-709.

Point 3: Section 4-2-710.

Definitional Cross References:

“Buyer”. Section 4-2-103.

“Contract”. Section 4-1-201.

“Seller”. Section 4-2-103.

Research References & Practice Aids

Hierarchy Notes:

C.R.S. Title 4

C.R.S. Title 4, Art. 2

C.R.S. Title 4, Art. 2, Pt. 7

State Notes

ANNOTATION

Annotator’s note.

Since § 4-2-708 is similar to repealed § 121-1-64, CRS 53, and CSA, C. 143A, 64 (uniform sales act), relevant cases construing these provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

The measure of damages provided in the case of nonacceptance of the goods is

the difference between the contract price and the fair market price at the time when the goods ought to have been accepted. Howse v. Crumb, 143 Colo. 90, 352 P.2d 285 (1960).

Where buyer wrongfully refuses to accept delivery, the seller’s right to retain a down payment is

for application on the damages and not addition to them, so if the damages are in excess of such a down payment, only the excess is recoverable. Thach v. Durham, 120 Colo. 253, 208 P.2d 1159 (1949).

Seller’s right to apply down payment on damages is not controlling where the seller exercises the right to resell

in good faith. Dolfin v. Bruesselbach, 111 Colo. 525, 143 P.2d 1014 (1943).

Seller’s recovery by resale under § 4-2-706 may differ from that of this section.

Howse v. Crumb, 143 Colo. 90, 352 P.2d 285 (1960).

Where a contract provides for alternative performances, the remedy for its breach is not determined exclusively by the Uniform Commercial Code.

The parties to a contract may vary the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code by agreement, and may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided by the Uniform Commercial Code. Colo. Interstate Gas Co. v. Chemco, Inc., 854 P.2d 1232 (Colo. 1993).