Otto Goedecke, Inc. v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 22 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 7444,7444 |
| Parties | OTTO GOEDECKE, INC., Appellant, v. T. H. HENDERSON, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Key, Carr & Clark, Lubbock, for appellant.
Crenshaw, Dupree & Milam, Lubbock, for appellee.
This is a suit for breach of contract. Otto Goedecke, Inc. contracted in writing in December of 1960 and January of 1961 to purchase 1300 bales of cotton of certain grade and staple at specified prices from T. H. Henderson. Upon the failure of Henderson to deliver 345 of the 1300 bales contracted for, Goedecke filed this suit for damages. Based upon the jury's answers to special issues submitted the trial court entered judgment for Goedecke for $261.59 which represented its loss from weight and storage penalties and price errors on the cotton actually delivered by Henderson. The other relief sought was denied. From such judgment Goedecke has perfected this appeal.
In response to the special issues the jury found Henderson did not repudiate the contract prior to May 1, 1961; that the type and quality of cotton contracted for could not be bought in the open market nearer to Lubbock than Houston during the period from May 1 through June 23, 1961; that Goedecke did not use reasonable diligence in purchasing cotton to replace that contracted for prior to June 1, 1961; that Goedecke was damaged $261.59 as stated above; in response to Special Issue No. 7 the jury found that the reasonable value of cotton of the type and quality contracted for in Lubbock between May 1 and June 23 was '$7.82 per bale diff times 345 bales equals $2697.90.' The jury failed to answer two special issues inquiring if the failure of Goedecke to pay drafts Henderson drew on the Houston bank constituted a material breach of a contract; and the conditional issue inquiring if Henderson waived such breach.
Both parties filed trial amendments. Plaintiff pleaded an alternate measure of damages of the difference between the contract price and the reasonable value of the cotton which the defendant failed to deliver at the time and place the contract was repudiated. Plaintiff further pleaded the date and place of repudiation was after May 1, 1961 at Lubbock, Texas. The defendant Henderson pleaded alternatively by trial amendment that if it should be held the defendant breached or repudiated the contract the plaintiff failed and neglected to exercise due diligence to purchase cotton to replace that which was not delivered by the defendant. These alternative pleadings formed the basis for the submission of Special Issues Nos. 3 and 7.
It is well settled that where a seller has wrongfully neglected or refused to deliver goods to the buyer under a written contract, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the undelivered goods at the agreed time and place of delivery. Ullman, Lewis & Co. v. Babcock, 63 Tex. 68; West Lumber Co. v. C. R. Cummings, (Comm.App.), 228 S.W. 911, (Opinion Adopted); Lathrop-Marshall Grain Co. v. Nash, (Tex.Civ.App.), 282 S.W. 824; Harkey v. Hindman, (Tex.Civ.App.), 19 S.W.2d 151. If there is no market at the place of delivery, the market value at the nearest point where there is such a value may be taken with the addition of costs of transporation. Steinlein v. S. Blaisdell, Jr. Co., (Tex.Civ.App.), 44 S.W. 200; Woldert Grocery Co. v. Veltman, (Tex.Civ.App.) 83 S.W. 224; Barnes v. Early-Foster Co., (Tex...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fredonia Broadcasting Corp., Inc. v. RCA Corporation
...the time and place of the breach". Henderson v. Otto Goedecke, Inc., 430 S.W.2d 120, 123 (Tex.Civ.App.1968); Otto Goedecke, Inc. v. Henderson, 388 S.W.2d 728, 730 (Tex.Civ.App.1965); Idalou Cooperative Cotton Gin v. Gue, 317 S.W.2d 240, 247 (Tex.Civ.App. 1958); Pace Corporation v. Jackson, ......
-
United Furniture & Appliance Co. v. Johnson
...amount by which the damages were increased by such failure. The appellant-defendant has failed to discharge this burden. Goedecke, Inc. v. Henderson, 388 S.W.2d 728, 730 (Tex.Civ.app., Amarillo, 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.); Tom Brown Drilling Company v. Nieman, 418 S.W.2d 337, 340--341 (Tex.Ci......
-
Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Fuller
...Union Telegraph Co. v. Federolf, 145 S.W. 314, 316 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1912, no writ); Otto Goedecke, Inc. v. Henderson, 388 S.W.2d 728, 730 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We conclude that no duty existed upon Trinity to cancel or reduce the policy coverage, and, t......
-
Catlin Aviation Co. v. Equilease Corp.
...F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1963); Hegler v. Board of Education of Bearden School District, 447 F.2d 1078 (8th Cir. 1971); Goedecke v. Henderson, 388 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.Civ.App.1965). ...