Taggert v. Brimfield
| Decision Date | 01 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 2856. |
| Citation | 281 F. 830 |
| Parties | TAGGERT v. BRIMFIELD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Henry F. Stockwell and Bleakly & Stockwell, all of Camden, N.J for plaintiff in error.
Harvey F. Carr and Carr & Carroll, all of Camden, N.J., for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
The question in this case is the construction of the agreement printed in the margin. [1] In pursuance of such contract, Brimfield, the defendant, furnished 10,000 tons of gravel, and, when requested by Taggert to furnish more, declined, alleging 10,000 tons was all he was required to furnish. Thereupon Taggert brought suit, but the court below agreed with Brimfield's contention, and gave the jury binding instructions to find against Taggert. Thereupon the latter sued out this writ
We are of opinion the court erred in its construction of the contract. The purpose of this contract was selling by Brimfield and buying by Taggert, viz.: 'William W Brimfield agrees to sell and William R. Taggert agrees to buy. ' The subject of sale was gravel, viz.: 'Gravel of the type known as 'Cedar Lake' for foundry purposes. ' The amount was from 10,000 to 25,000 tons viz.: 'In the amount of the minimum of 10,000 tons and a maximum of 25,000 tons. ' The price was $1 a ton and time of performance one year from date.
Contracts of this general type are common, where a manufacturer has to provide in advance for a supply of some needed material, the exact amount of which he cannot then specify. In this uncertainty, he names a minimum, which on his part he positively agrees to take, and he names a maximum up to, but not beyond, which the seller is bound to furnish. In this way, both parties are protected. The seller has insured an absolute sale of a definite, minimum amount, which the buyer is bound to take, no matter whether he needs it or not. So, also, in consideration of such present minimum sale, which the seller then makes, he agrees on his part to furnish a further quantity up to the maximum, if the buyer requires it. So, in construing the present contract, every provision of it is given effect, and the obligation of Brimfield to sell up to the maximum and of Taggert to buy up to the minimum stand on a plane of reciprocal equality.
Holding as we do, the court below erred in its construction of the contract, its judgment is reversed, and the case remanded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Companhia De Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro v. CG Blake Co.
...that the choice between those limits lay with the seller. Crystal Paper Co. v. Robertson Co., 289 F. 15 (C. C. A. 6); Taggert v. Brimfield, 281 F. 830 (C. C. A. 3). That depends upon how the parties were situated and for whose benefit the option was left open. Wheeler v. Railroad Co., 115 U......
-
United Carbon Co. v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., Inc
... ... 1065, 129 So. 638; and the authorities ... therein cited, especially Louisville Soap Co. v. Taylor ... (C. C. A.) 279 F. 470, and Taggert v. Brimfield (C. C ... A.) 281 F. 830 ... 5. The ... maximum and minimum limits stipulated in this contract cannot ... reasonably be ... ...
-
United States v. P & D Coal Mining Co.
...ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand tons of coal. An excellent description of this type of contract appears in Taggert v. Brimfield, 281 F. 830, 831 (C.A. 3, 1922): "Contracts of this general type are common, where a manufacturer has to provide in advance for a supply of some needed m......
-
Crystal Paper Co. v. Robertson Co., Inc.
...for defendant in the instant case is, so far as that court is concerned, practically overthrown by its recent decision in Taggert v. Brimfield, 281 F. 830 (participated in by two of the three judges who sat in earlier case), that a contract for the purchase and sale of gravel of specific ty......