Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Great Am. Music Mach., Inc. v. Mid-South Record Pressing Co. - 393 F. Supp. 877 (M.D. Tenn. 1975)

Rule:

The law is well settled that the injured party is not to be put in a better position by a recovery of damages for breach of contract than he would have been in if there had been full performance.

Facts:

This suit was brought by plaintiffs Great American Music Machine, Inc. (GrAMM), a Colorado corporation, and Ralph Harrison, a citizen and resident of Colorado, against defendant Mid-South Record Pressing Company, a division of GRT Corporation, with its principal place of business in Davidson County, Tennessee. The complaint seeks monetary damages, based upon breach of contract and implied warranty in connection with some record albums which plaintiffs allege were defectively pressed by Mid-South. The defendant counterclaimed on its open account with the plaintiff corporation in the stipulated amount of $13,025.

Issue:

In a music corporation's action for breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, should the music corporation be granted its entire investment in a recorded album as damages for the breach by Mid-South Record Pressing Company?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The United States District Court held that Mid-South Record Pressing Company breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, T.C.A. § 47-2-314 and § 47-2-315 (Tenn.), in the first pressing and its express contractual agreement to produce records of high quality. The Court found that plaintiff Harrison's claim for breach of warranty was not cognizable under Tennessee law as there was no privity between the individual and the pressing company, noting that T.C.A. § 23-3004 (Tenn.) was not to be retroactively applied. The Court found no accord and satisfaction between the music corporation and the pressing company. The Court found no proof to its satisfaction that there was ever an appreciable market for the record. The law is well settled that the injured party is not to be put in a better position by a recovery of damages for breach of contract than he would have been in if there had been full performance. 25 C.J.S. § 3. In this case, to grant GrAMM its entire investment in the album as damages for the breach by Mid-South Record Pressing Company would in all probability be to put GrAMM in a far better financial position than it would have been in had there been no breach. The Court cannot allow such. It does not appear that plaintiff would have recouped the investment even if there had been no breach.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class