This article seeks to bring greater discipline to the analysis of market damages by probing two basic assumptions that are routinely made in discussions of section 2-713: (1) that overcompensation concerns justify judicial interference with the buyer's choice of remedy; and (2) that the relevant market price, in all cases, is the market price that the aggrieved buyer would be required to pay if she wished to make a substitute purchase of goods elsewhere.

Document Type


Publication Date