American Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Dent.
Decision Date | 05 December 1910 |
Parties | AMERICAN HARDWOOD LUMBER CO. v. DENT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
A memorandum of a contract for the sale of lumber addressed to the seller opened with the statement: "You may enter our order for the following hard woods to be gotten out between now and January 1, 1903." It then contained a schedule of prices per thousand for different kinds and sizes, and, under the head "Quantity," stated: "You are to cut at least 500,000 feet and not to exceed a million feet of stock within the above specified contract." Held that, since plaintiff was given no discretion as to the kind and quantity of lumber to be cut and tendered except that the amount should not be less than 500,000 feet nor more than 1,000,000, the determination of such elements was within defendant's discretion, and hence the contract was sufficiently definite to sustain a suit for damages for its breach.
4. SALES (§ 418) — BREACH OF CONTRACT — DAMAGES.
Where a contract for the manufacture and sale of lumber provided for a delivery of not less than 500,000 feet nor more than 1,000,000, and specified the prices to be paid according to the kind and sizes cut, leaving both the amount to be tendered and the variety to the seller's discretion, the damages recoverable in an action for the seller's breach of contract should be determined with reference to the seller's obligation to furnish 500,000 feet of the kind of lumber on which the loss would be the least.
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert M. Foster, Judge.
Action by the American Hardwood Lumber Company against R. K. Dent. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Julius T. Muench, for appellant. Pearce, Davis & Curlee, for respondent.
Action for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff at the trial had the contract identified, then offered it in evidence; but, upon defendant's objection, the court excluded it. Plaintiff then took a nonsuit with leave to move to set the same aside, and, upon the court's refusal to do so, has appealed.
The contract referred to was as follows:
The objection to this contract was that it was so ambiguous and indefinite that it could not support plaintiff's cause of action; that there was nothing to show the amount and quantity of each variety of lumber to be shipped. When this objection was made, counsel for plaintiff stated that he expected to follow the introduction of the contract with oral...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mecartney v. Guardian Trust Company
...Power Co. v. Stillwell, 97 Mo.App. 258, 71 S.W. 380; Coal & Iron Co. v. Coal Co., 176 Mo.App. 407, 158 S.W. 420; Lumber Co. v. Dent, 151 Mo.App. 614, 132 S.W. 320; Zinc & Lead Co. v. Ins. Co., 152 Mo.App. 332, S.W. 156.] The fundamental of all rules is that the intention of the parties must......
-
Citizens Trust Company v. Tindle
...advantage to one of the parties to it over the other." Counts v. Medley, 163 Mo.App. 546; McManus v. Fair Co., 60 Mo.App. 216; Lumber Co. v. Dent, 151 Mo.App. 614. (6) Where one construction will destroy a contract another construction will make it valid, and the party trying to destroy the......
-
Van Deusen v. Ruth
... ... Flanagan Mills & Elev. Co., 268 Mo. 547, 188 ... S.W. 117; American Hardwood Lbr. Co. v. Dent, 151 ... Mo.App. 614, 132 S.W. 321; Counts v ... ...
-
Herzog v. Ross
... ... v. Mitchelhill Seed Co., 153 S.W.2d ... 106, 236 Mo.App. 142; American Hardwood Co. v. Dent, ... 132 S.W. 320, 322; Phillips v. American Natl ... ...