Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 2-703

Current through Laws 2024, c. 378.

Section 2-703 - Seller's Remedies in General

Where the buyer wrongfully rejects or revokes acceptance of goods or fails to make a payment due on or before delivery or repudiates with respect to a part or the whole, then with respect to any goods directly affected and, if the breach is of the whole contract (Section 2-612), then also with respect to the whole undelivered balance, the aggrieved seller may

(a) withhold delivery of such goods;

(b) stop delivery by any bailee as hereafter provided (Section 2-705);

(c) proceed under the next section respecting goods still unidentified to the contract;

(d) resell and recover damages as hereafter provided (Section 2-706);

(e) recover damages for nonacceptance (Section 2-708) or in a proper case the price (Section 2-709);

(f) cancel.

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-703

Laws 1961, p. 96, § 2-703.

Oklahoma Code Comment

Prior Statutory Provisions:

Previous Oklahoma statutes setting out the seller's remedies, repealed by the Commercial Code, include 23 O.S. §§ 31, 32, 91, and 42 O.S. § 29. The text of these repealed sections is set out in an Appendix at the end of this title.

Comment:

The seller's remedies in Oklahoma were previously governed by the repealed statutes. (1) If title had passed to the buyer, the seller could recover the contract price, 23 O.S. § 31; (2) If title had not passed, and the property had been resold, the seller could recover damages, 23 O.S. § 32; (3) If title had not passed, and the goods had not been resold, the seller could recover damages. The formula for ascertaining damages was stated in 23 O.S. § 91, and will be discussed later. The final remedy (4) was the vendor's lien, 42 O.S. § 29, which was enforced in the same manner as a pledge under 55 O.S. § 19, also repealed by the Commercial Code. When the seller was in fact selling the goods under his vendor's lien, the procedures of 55 O.S. § 19 were followed. Abraham v. Builders' Material Co., 115 Okl. 141, 242 P. 205 (1925). In such cases, the seller's damages were measured by the difference between the contract price and the amount realized by the sale, if the sale was made in good faith. Barnett Williams, Okl., 312 P.2d 443 (1957). However, the seller could sell the goods, not as an enforcement of the vendor's lien, but merely as a method of affixing damages. Gaines Bros. & Co. v. Citizens' Bank of Henryetta, 84 Okl. 265, 204 P. 112 (1922). In such cases, the damages were measured by the difference of the contract price from the reasonable market value of the goods. 23 O.S. § 91. It was held that the price brought on resale was sufficient evidence of their market value in the absence of evidence to contrary. Gaines Bros. & Co. v. Citizens' Bank of Henryetta, supra, Rose v. Woldert Grocery Co., 54 Okl. 566, 154 P. 531 (1916); Guthrie Mill & Elevator Co. v. Thompson & Gibson, 89 Okl. 173. 214 P. 716 (1923).