Coxe Bros. & Co. v. Anoka Waterworks, Electric Light & Power Company
| Decision Date | 03 July 1902 |
| Docket Number | 12,957 - (84) |
| Citation | 91 N.W. 265,87 Minn. 56 |
| Parties | COXE BROS. & CO. v. ANOKA WATERWORKS, ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Anoka county to recover $220.66 and interest for goods sold and delivered. Defendant interposed a counterclaim for $272.50 for breach of contract. The case was tried before Giddings, J., who directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum demanded. From an order granting a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Failure to Deliver Goods -- Measure of Damages.
Where a vendor refuses to deliver goods and merchandise according to a contract of sale theretofore entered into, the vendee may recover as damages the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time and place of delivery. Where there is no market value at the place of delivery, the price in the nearest market, with the cost of transportation added, determines the value of the article.
Counterclaim -- Evidence.
Held that under the foregoing rule there was evidence at the trial of this cause which required the submission of defendant's counterclaim to the jury.
Morphy Ewing & Bradford, for appellant.
G. H. Wyman, for respondent.
The measure of damages applicable to defendant's counterclaim is well settled as follows: Where a vendor refuses to deliver goods and merchandise according to a contract of sale theretofore entered into, the vendee may recover as damages the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time and place of delivery. Where there is no market value at the place of delivery, the price in the nearest market, with the cost of transportation added, determines the value of the article. There was testimony in this case tending to show the market value of the coal contracted for, at the place of delivery, and that it was in substantial excess of the contract price. It was sufficient to raise an issue upon the counterclaim for the jury to pass upon, and in fact created the material issue at the trial. It was wholly disregarded by the trial court when it directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of its claim.
Reliance has been placed by plaintiff's counsel upon Lawrence v. Porter, 11 C.C.A. 27, 63 F. 62; also found, with an editorial note, in 26 L.R.A. 167. The syllabus, which fairly states the gist of the opinion; is as follows:
"The duty to minimize loss requires a buyer, upon breach by the seller of a contract to sell goods upon credit, to accept the latter's unconditional offer to sell at a reduced price for cash on delivery, where he is able to accept it, and goods of that kind and quality are not purchasable from other parties."
And it is contended that this rule of law governs this case because, some thirty days after plaintiff refused to comply further with its contract to sell coal to defendant upon sixty days' time, as it had agreed to do, it offered to sell at a reduced price for cash on delivery; the proposed reduction in price being, as we understand it, an amount equal to the interest for sixty days upon the cash required...
To continue reading
Request your trial