Piano & Organ Warehouse, Inc. v. Wulf
Decision Date | 30 January 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 22274,22274 |
Citation | 423 P.2d 26,161 Colo. 457 |
Parties | PIANO AND ORGAN WAREHOUSE, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harry WULF, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Berger & Biderman, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Larry E. Lawler, Denver, for defendant in error.
After trial to court the defendant in error, Harry Wulf, hereinafter referred to as Wulf, was awarded a judgment in the amount of $250 plus costs against the plaintiff in error, Piano and Organ Warehouse, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Warehouse, Inc., as damages in lieu of specific performance. Warehouse, Inc. contends there is no basis in law or equity for this award of damages, since Wulf, upon trial of the issues, presented no evidence as to his damage, if any.
In its findings, the court below ruled there was a valid contract whereby Wulf agreed to purchase and Warehouse, Inc. agreed to sell a certain piano for $695 less a credit of $350 for a trade-in piano; that no consideration was paid; that Warehouse, Inc. was unable to deliver the piano in question because it did not in fact own it but was holding it for sale for a third party, who had specified a cash sale; and that the piano had been sold and the court was therefore unable to order specific performance.
In his complaint, Wulf prayed for specific performance because of the uniqueness of the piano and because a similar piano could not be obtained at the agreed price. In a second claim for relief, Wulf prays for damages on grounds of breach of contract, it being acknowledged therein that specific performance would not be possible.
Although a transcript of the testimony was not made a part of the record on writ of error, the findings of the court state that specific performance is not being granted; that Wulf has an adequate remedy at law; that no evidence of damages was shown; that damages were being, however, awarded in lieu of specific performance. How the court determined the amount of damages is shown from its ruling denying the motion for new trial, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Medema Homes, Inc. v. Lynn, 81SC208
...correctly applied by trial court II. See Atchison v. City of Englewood, 193 Colo. 367, 568 P.2d 13 (1977); Piano and Organ Warehouse, Inc. v. Wulf, 161 Colo. 457, 423 P.2d 26 (1967); Minshall v. Case, 148 Colo. 12, 364 P.2d 868 (1961); 5 A. Corbin, Contracts § 1098 (1951); C. McCormick, The......
-
Bennett v. Moring
...bargain, I.e., the market value at the time the conveyance was to take place, minus the unpaid contract price. Piano & Organ Warehouse, Inc. v. Wulf, 161 Colo. 457, 423 P.2d 26. II REALTOR'S Although the status of the claim of the real estate agency for a commission is not clear on appeal f......
- Threadgill v. Capra
-
Lynn v. Medema Homes, Inc., 80CA0443
...market value of the property at the time the conveyance was to take place, minus the contract price." See Piano & Organ Warehouse, Inc. v. Wulf, 161 Colo. 457, 423 P.2d 26 (1967). Insofar as the rule in Bennett states that the measure of damages is the amount of loss sustained by the non-br......