1. (1) Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (subsection (3) of Section 12A-2-607) he may recover as damages for any nonconformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller's breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable.

2. (2) The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of

   acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.

3. (3) In a proper case any incidental and consequential damages under the next section may also be recovered.

   Oklahoma Code Comment

   Prior Statutory Provisions:

   23 O.S. §§ 33, 34, 35.

   Text and derivation of prior provisions, see Appendix at end of this title.

   Comment:

4. (1) Previously in Oklahoma,

   acceptance of the goods did not preclude an action for damages. T. H. Rogers Lumber Co. v. N. W. Judd Lumber Co., 52 Okl. 387, 153 P. 150 (1915). This section is broad enough to permit recovery for any breach: time of delivery, improper method of shipment, and the like. There are no previous direct decisions in Oklahoma other than on the quality of goods. See Robbins v. Trotter, 203 Okl. 68, 217 P.2d 1027 (1950).

5. (2) All warranties are grouped together in this section, including merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, warranty of title, and the like. The cause of

   action accrues at the time and place of acceptance. Previous Oklahoma law is in accord with the measure of damages for breach of warranty. 23 O.S. §§ 34, 35, now repealed - see text of these former statutes in Appendix at the end of this title. Note that under the Commercial Code the damages are restricted to the difference between the two values, and that consequential damages cannot be recovered unless special circumstances are shown. Previous Oklahoma decisions held the same. In Pauls Valley Milling Co. v. Gabbert, 182 Okl. 500, 78 P.2d 685, 117 A.L.R. 466 (1938) the plaintiff ordered a special kind of seed, and the seller delivered an ordinary seed. The purchaser immediately discovered the difference, but nevertheless planted the inferior seed. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recoup the difference between the value of the seed ordered and the seed delivered, and could not recover the difference in value of the two crops. But in Lawton Refining Co. v. Hollister, 86 Okl. 13, 205 P. 506 (1922), the court permitted: the plaintiff to recover loss of profit in addition to the difference in value. because the defect could not be discovered, and in fact was not, until the goods were sold to the buyer's customers.

6. (3) Consequential damages are discussed under the next section.

Laws 1961, SB 36, p. 99, §