Jericho Sash & Door Co. v. Building Erectors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1972 |
| Citation | 286 N.E.2d 343,362 Mass. 871 |
| Parties | , 10 UCC Rep.Serv. 1377 JERICHO SASH AND DOOR COMPANY, Inc. v. BUILDING ERECTORS, INC. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Joseph Golant, Lynn, for defendant.
David R. Berley, Boston (Herbert Abrams, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
Before REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant appeals from a final decree for the plaintiff on this bill in equity to reach and apply assets of the defendant to the plaintiff's claim of damages for breach of contract. The sole question presented is whether the trial judge erred in allowing damages for 'profit (including reasonable overhead)' under G.L. c. 106, § 2--708(2), in the absence of evidence showing separate figures for profit and for overhead. The plaintiff delivered 1,420 pairs of assorted sizes of window sash, for which the defendant admitted liability, and the defendant then repudiated the undelivered balance of 5,580. The plaintiff introduced evidence showing the 'weighted average sales price per pair' and the 'weighted average direct cost per pair' of the delivered sash. Subtraction of cost from price gave 'lost profit and overhead per unit,' and multiplication by the number of undelivered units gave 'total lost profit and overhead,' and the judge awarded more than $21,000 on that account. There was no error. The judge followed the statutory injunction that the remedy 'be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed.' G.L. c. 106, § 1--106(1), as appearing in St.1957, c. 765, § 1. Damages need not Comment 1 to § 1--106(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code, 1 U.L.A. (Master Ed.). See DYECRAFTSMEN, INC. V. FEINBERG, MASS., 269 N.E.2D 693.A There was evidence that all the expenses that were saved as a result of the breach were included in direct cost except for a few relatively insignificant items. Compare F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Hartney, 308 Mass. 407, 412, 32 N.E.2d 237; COYNE INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY OF SCHENECTADY, INC. V. GOULD, MASS., 268 N.E.2D 848.B There is no requirement that 'overhead' be separated from 'net profit' in the computation. As the plaintiff's witness and the judge clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delano Growers' Co-op. Winery v. Supreme Wine Co., Inc.
...so that the aggrieved party is placed in the same position as if the contract was performed. Jericho Sash & Door Co. v. Building Erectors, Inc., 362 Mass. 871, 872, 286 N.E.2d 343 (1972).Delano's other arguments on incidental and consequential damages are based on its own view of the facts.......
-
Niles v. Boston Rent Control Adm'r
... ... The Supreme Judicial Court in Marshal House, Inc. v. Rent Control Bd. of Brookline, 358 Mass. 686, ... ...
-
Bead Chain Mfg. Co. v. Saxton Products, Inc.
...the equivalent of net profit plus overhead, or of gross profit 4 including overhead. See, e.g., Jericho Sash & Door Co. v. Building Erectors, Inc., 362 Mass. 871, 872, 286 N.E.2d 343 (1972); Unique Systems, Inc. v. Zotos International, Inc., 622 F.2d 373, 378 (8th Cir. 1980); Neumiller Farm......
-
Roblin Hope Industries, Inc. v. J. A. Sullivan Corp. (No. 2)
...N.E.2d 289 (1978).5 See concerning a somewhat analogous problem under G.L. c. 106, § 2-708(2), Jericho Sash & Door Co. Inc. v. Building Erectors, Inc., 362 Mass. 871, 872, 286 N.E.2d 343 (1972), and Cesco Mfg. Corp. v. Norcross, Inc., 7 Mass.App. ---, --- - --- (Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1979) 1......