Clark v. Henshaw Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 09 October 1923
• Citation: 246 Mass. 386
• Parties: BYRON CLARK v. HENSHAW MOTOR COMPANY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

246 Mass. 386

BYRON CLARK v. HENSHAW MOTOR COMPANY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 9, 1923

September 25, 1923.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., BRALEY, DE COURCY, PIERCE, & JENNEY, JJ.

Evidence, Common knowledge. Damages, For breach of contract, Special damages. Sale. Practice, Civil, Verdict, New trial, Exceptions.

It is matter of common knowledge that an automobile is a chattel commonly bought and sold in the market.

The measure of damages for failure to deliver an automobile according to a contract which contains no provision as to any other method of computing or liquidating the damages, is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the automobile at the time stipulated for delivery.

At the trial of an action for breach of a contract to sell and deliver to the plaintiff an automobile of a special make, the contract containing no provision for the computation or liquidation of damages in case of a breach by the defendant, it is proper to exclude evidence, offered by the plaintiff, tending to show that, having in his employ several salesmen using that make of automobile, he was deprived of the services of one of them and thereby lost substantial profits from his business by reason of not having the automobile delivered according to the contract, such damages not resulting directly and naturally in the ordinary course of events from the breach of such a contract and there being nothing to indicate that the special use to which the plaintiff intended to put the automobile was made known to the defendant.

Evidence at the trial of the action above described, on the question of damages, which tended to show the rental value of an automobile during the period of nondelivery, was rightly excluded.

At the trial of an action for damages resulting from a breach of a contract to sell and deliver to the plaintiff an automobile of a specified make, it appeared that the plaintiff had deposited with the defendant $50 at the time of making the contract and the jury were instructed that, if the defendant had broken the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to recover at least $50. A verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1 was returned, and the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and to the instructions of the court, and was inadequate. The defendant filed a stipulation to the effect that judgment might be entered for the plaintiff for $51 and costs, and the judge, subject to an exception by the plaintiff, overruled the motion for a new trial. Held, that, in the circumstances the refusal to grant the motion for a new trial showed no abuse of discretion, and that the exception must be overruled.

CONTRACT, for breach of a contract to sell and deliver to the plaintiff a "Dodge touring car." Writ in the Central District Court of Worcester dated October 25, 1920.

On appeal to the Superior Court, the action was tried before Weed, J. Material evidence, exceptions saved by the plaintiff, and proceedings relating to a motion for a new trial are described in the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.

C. E. Tupper, for the plaintiff. L. E. Stockwell, for the defendant.

RUGG, C.J. This is an action to recover compensation for breach of a contract to deliver to the plaintiff in February, 1920, an automobile of designated make. The plaintiff offered to show that, having in his employ several salesmen using that make of automobile he was deprived of the, services of one of them and thereby lost substantial profits from his business by reason of not having the automobile delivered according to the contract. This offer of proof was excluded rightly.

It is matter of common knowledge that an automobile is a chattel commonly bought and sold in the market. The measure of damages for failure to deliver according to the contract was the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time stipulated for delivery. G.L.c. 106, Section 56(3). F. W. Stock & Sons v. Snell, 240 Mass. 427 , 431. Hall v. Paine, 224 Mass. 62 , 65. No exceptional circumstances are shown which render applicable any other rule of damages.

Loss of profits on an independent business, in a subsidiary connection with which the automobile was intended by the plaintiff to have been used, is too remote to have any relation to refusal to deliver the automobile according to contract. Such loss does not directly and naturally in the ordinary course of events result...