FROMME, Justice:

Panhandle Agri-Service, Inc., is a Texas corporation engaged in the purchase and sale of hay, feed yard chemicals, conditioners, and preservatives. It entered into a contract with Norman Becker, a farmer at Garden City, Kansas, to purchase 10,000 tons of alfalfa at $45.00 a ton to be delivered at the Becker farm near Garden City during the 1978 hay season. Becker was short of hay at the end of the 1978 season. The president of Panhandle, Jake Holster, and Becker then agreed that the balance of the hay due under the contract, 912 tons and 256 pounds, would be supplied from the 1979 hay crop.

Difficulties arose in 1979. It was alleged that Becker failed or refused to supply the balance of hay, and Panhandle brought suit to recover damages for breach of the contract.

Some of the difficulties which brought about the breach included certain financial difficulties of Panhandle. Although Panhandle had paid Becker for all hay delivered in 1978, it had incurred considerable outside indebtedness. In attempting to satisfy its creditors it sold its fleet of trucks which had been used to haul the hay from Kansas to Texas. Panhandle also had become involved in a lawsuit with LeRoy Nichols, a resident of Kansas, over payment of commissions. Nichols obtained a $3,000.00 judgment against Panhandle. The president of Panhandle, Jake Holster, quit the company and a Walter Nelson moved into the presidency.

In May, 1979, Nelson called Becker by telephone to verify that they still had a contract. Becker later called Nelson and told him he could pick up the hay. However, because of Panhandle's financial troubles, of which Becker was aware, it was stipulated that the hay must be paid for before loading. Panhandle agreed. Panhandle arranged with a Gale McCoy to haul the hay and he was given a check for the first load. Then McCoy learned of the judgment which Nichols held against Panhandle. Nichols threatened to attach the trucks by legal process if the hay was picked up. McCoy refused to get involved and returned the check for hay to Panhandle sometime later.

By this time in 1979, the market price of hay at Garden City had risen to $62.00 per ton. Nelson then contacted Becker. Nelson testified at trial that Becker told him he would not deliver anymore hay. No reason was given. Suit was filed and the trial court awarded Panhandle damages for breach of contract in the sum of $12,698.63. There was testimony by Nelson that he had contracted to sell the hay in Texas for $67.00 per ton or at a profit of $22.00 per ton, and the cost of hauling the hay from Kansas to the Texas market was figured at $7,371.00. The trial court arrived at the $12,698.63 by multiplying 912.256 tons by $22.00 per ton to arrive at a figure of $20,069.63; then it subtracted the $7,371.00 cost of hauling to arrive at the amount of judgment.

Both parties have appealed. At the outset it must be pointed out the trial court improperly used 912.256 tons instead of 912 tons 256 pounds.

***

There was competent evidence to support a finding of breach of contract and this court on appeal will not reweigh the evidence.

***

We now turn to the question of what was the proper method of arriving at the amount of damages. As previously stated Panhandle argues on appeal it should be entitled to loss of profits of $20,069.63. Becker argues the entire judgment should be set aside but, if not, the judgment should be reduced to $4,560.64, which would show a deduction from the loss of profits claimed by plaintiff of the costs of trucking from Kansas to Texas. McCoy was going to charge $17.00 per ton.

Under the facts of this case we believe both contentions are in error. The Uniform Commercial Code concerning sales provides:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this article with respect to proof of market price (section 84-2-723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this article (section 84- 2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.

(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival." K.S.A. 84-2-713.

The trial court determined that the market price of alfalfa hay at Garden City, Kansas, in 1979, was $62.00 per ton. The contract price agreed on by the parties was $45.00. So the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller would be $62.00 less $45.00 or $17.00 per ton, provided no incidental or consequential damages are recoverable in this case, and provided there was no evidence that "cover" was not possible.

The meaning of the word "cover" as used in the Uniform Commercial Code relating to sales is explained in K.S.A. 84-2-712 and refers roughly to the buyer's procurement of substitute goods when the seller nondelivers or repudiates. The philosophy underlying this "cover option" appears to be that an aggrieved buyer can obtain substituted goods without having to suffer any great loss. See the Official UCC Comment following K.S.A. 84-2-712.

Trucking or transportation expense was not deductible from the above figure. Under the Code it is assumed the buyer will attempt to "cover" the merchandise lost by seller's nondelivery at the seller's shipping point. If the buyer seeks a replacement of the merchandise at the shipping point, he would incur replacement shipping costs roughly equivalent to those on the original contract. Thus, by comparison with such a replacement contract there would be no expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach because we assume the buyer must pay the expenses for shipment under the new contract as well. White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code s 6-4, pp. 231-232 (2nd ed. 1980).

The Official UCC Comment, appearing after the text of K.S.A. 84-2-713, at paragraphs one and two states:

1. The general baseline adopted in this section uses as a yardstick the market in which the buyer would have obtained cover had he sought that relief. So the place for measuring damages is the place of tender (or the place of arrival if the goods are rejected or their acceptance is revoked after reaching their destination) and the crucial time is the time at which the buyer learns of the breach.

2. The market or current price to be used in comparison with the contract price under this section is the price for goods of the same kind and in the same branch of trade.

As to incidental damages resulting from the seller's breach there was n o evidence to support any of the items listed in K.S.A. 84-2-715(1). Incidental damages concern expenses when goods are tendered and rejected or have to be transported and cared for, or which concern charges in connection with effecting cover.

As to consequential damages K.S.A. 84-2-715(2)(a) provides:

(2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach include "(a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise."

Failure of the buyer to utilize the remedy of cover when such is reasonably available will preclude recovery of consequential damages, such as loss of profits. White & Summers s 6-6, 234 fn. 103, s 6-7, 250, s 10-4, 396. However, K.S.A. 84-2-712, which provides for cover, i.e., the buyer's procurement of substitute goods, states:

(3) Failure of the buyer to effect cover within this section does not bar him from any other remedy.

Therefore, cover is not a mandatory remedy for the buyer. The buyer is free to choose between cover and damages for nondelivery. In the present record we find no evidence which would support a finding that cover was attempted but found unavailable. We find nothing which would justify the trial court in arriving at damages using loss of business profits which are consequential damages. Consequential damages are limited under K.S.A. 84-2-715(2)(a) to those instances where it is established that the loss could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise. A buyer does not have to cover under K.S.A. 84-2-712(3); however, on failure to attempt cover, consequential damages, including loss of profits, cannot be recovered. K.S.A. 84-2-715(2)(a). International Petroleum Services, Inc. v. S & N Well Service, Inc., 230 Kan. 452, Syl. P 7, 639 P.2d 29.

In view of our ultimate decision that loss of profits are not a proper basis for damages in this case it will not be necessary to address appellant's claim that it was error to disallow the testimony of Jake Holster as to the amount of profit ordinarily realized on a ton of hay bought and sold by Panhandle.

The proper measure of damages under K.S.A. 84-2-713 based on the evidence before the trial court in this case is the difference between the contract price of $45.00 per ton and the market price of $62.00 at the place of delivery and at the time the buyer learned of nondelivery and repudiation. There was no evidence to indicate the buyer attempted and was unable to obtain cover. The proper award in this case is to be arrived at by subtracting $45.00 from $62.00 to make $17.00 per ton, the basis for arriving at damages. Multiplying 912 tons 256 pounds by $17.00 equals $15,506.18, which is the correct amount of the judgment to be entered in favor of plaintiff, plus interest and costs. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed as modified herein.