1. Nature of incidental and consequential damages
2. Miscellaneous
1. Nature of incidental and consequential damages
Consequential damages under this section include the buyer's loss of use of the goods. McCoolidge v. Oyvetsky, 292 Neb. 955, 874 N.W.2d 892 (2016).
Incidental damages under this section include the cost of storing defective goods. McCoolidge v. Oyvetsky, 292 Neb. 955, 874 N.W.2d 892 (2016).
Lost profits resulting from increased labor costs and decreased revenues discussed and distinguished. El Fredo Pizza, Inc. v. Roto-Flex Oven Co., 199 Neb. 697, 261 N.W.2d 358 (1978).
Consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach of contract include any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller, when contracting, knew and which could not be reasonably prevented. Burgess v. Curly Olney's, Inc., 198 Neb. 153, 251 N.W.2d 888 (1977).
Consequential damages from seller's breach include any loss resulting from general or particular requirements or needs of which seller had reason to know at time of contracting, and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise. National Farmers Organization, Inc. v. McCook Feed & Supply Co., 196 Neb. 424, 243 N.W.2d 335 (1976).
Consequential damages, as defined in subsection (2) of this section, occur as a consequence of special circumstances known or reasonably supposed to have been contemplated by the parties when the contract was made. Adams v. American Cyanamid Co., 1 Neb. App. 337, 498 N.W.2d 577 (1992).
2. Miscellaneous
The existence of "special circumstances" under section 2-714 is not a precondition to a buyer's recovery of incidental and consequential damages under this section. McCoolidge v. Oyvetsky, 292 Neb. 955, 874 N.W.2d 892 (2016).
In a warranty action against the manufacturer of an automatic collator, plaintiff's failure to prove what further profits would have been made had the collator functioned as warranted entitled defendant to a directed verdict as to consequential damages. Plaintiff's failure to prove the cost of the job if the collator had been used prevented the determination of the increase in costs of manual collation, thereby entitling defendant to a directed verdict as to consequential damages. Settell's, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 209 Neb. 26, 305 N.W.2d 896 (1981).
Breach of warranty issue supported by evidence of representation that milk production would be increased by feeding seller's feed supplement in amounts as instructed, and proof of loss in production thereby, but directed verdict for defendant affirmed because purchaser failed to prove extent of damages therefrom. Shotkoski v. Standard Chemical Manuf. Co., 195 Neb. 22, 237 N.W.2d 92 (1975).
Once city notified contractor seller of sewage treatment plant of contractor seller's breach of contract, although city had accepted plant, city was entitled to recover damages for seller's breach and for incidental and consequential damages. Omaha Pollution Control Corp. v. Carver-Greenfield Corp., 413 F.Supp. 1069 (D. Neb. 1976).