Susi v. Simonds
| Citation | 147 Me. 189,85 A.2d 178 |
| Parties | SUSI v. SIMONDS. |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1951 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
B. M. Siciliano, Dexter, for plaintiff.
Lloyd H. Stitham, Pittsfield, Merrill & Merrill, Skowhegan, for defendant.
Before MURCHIE, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, NULTY, and WILLIAMSON, JJ.
This is an action brought for the breach of an option to convey a parcel of real estate to the plaintiff. The option reads as follows:
'Madison, Me.
On receipt of $100.00 (one hundred dollars) paid by Donald D. Susi of Pittsfield, Maine, I, Mertie Simonds agree to hold my South Main Street property the home of which is now occupied by Fred Sinclair, for a period of ninety (90) days from this date and which property I agree to sell to said Donald D. Susi for the sum total of $6000.00 (six thousand dollars) less the $100.00 already paid and give said Susi a warranty deed at time of full payment.
(On reverse side of said Exhibit appears the following:)
Said S'
The action was not, however, brought in assumpsit but in tort because the plaintiff claimed to recover certain special damages which he has set forth in his writ which he seems to think could be more readily recovered if the action were brought in tort instead of assumpsit. By such procedure the action was only complicated, not simplified. An action on the case may lie concurrently with assumpsit for breach of an express or implied contract. Inhabitants of Milford v. Bangor Railway & Electric Co., 104 Me. 233, 71 A. 759, 30 L.R.A.,N.S., 531.
In order, however, for the plaintiff to recover the special damages which he here claims to have suffered beyond what would naturally flow from the breach claimed of such contract, it must affirmatively appear that the special circumstances under which the contract was actually made which gave rise to such damages were communicated by the plaintiff to the defendant and were thus in the contemplation of both parties at the time of making the contract. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exchequer Rep. 341; Griffin v. Colver, 16 N.Y. 489.
These special damages consist in part at least of loss of profits in the use which the purchaser contemplated making of the property which he did not obtain. But, as the trial judge very pertinently pointed out, it would be impossible for the purchaser to communicate such information to the seller when the purchaser admitted that he had not fully decided himself just what use he would make of the property.
We have the record in this case which is three hundred pages long, and from a careful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Ubaldo
...reasonably aware of those circumstances at the time the contract was created. Forbes, 409 A.2d at 654. See also, Susi v. Simonds, 147 Me. 189, 190-91, 85 A.2d 178 (1951), citing Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exchequer Rep. [F]or the plaintiff to recover the special damages he here claims to have s......
-
Rubin v. Matthews Intern. Corp.
...naturally flow from a breach thereof" may be recovered. Winship v. Brewer School Comm., 390 A.2d 1089, 1095 (Me.1978); Susi v. Simonds, 147 Me. 189, 85 A.2d 178 (1951). As a general rule, courts in other jurisdictions have denied recovery for mental or emotional distress suffered as a resul......
-
Spangler v. Holthusen
...original agreement to convey before lost profits might thereafter be recoverable for the vendor's refusal to convey. In Susi v. Simonds (1951), 147 Me. 189, 85 A.2d 178, recovery of lost profits from a planned use of the property by the vendee was denied where the vendee had not informed th......
-
Winship v. Brewer School Committee
...of the contracting parties when the agreement was made and which would naturally flow from a breach thereof. Susi v. Simonds, 147 Me. 189, 85 A.2d 178 (1951); Bennett v. Dyer, 102 Me. 361, 66 A. 725 The elements of damage comprising the $2,500.00 award are not encompassed within the foregoi......