AM/PM Franchise Ass'n v. Atl. Richfield Co.,

526 Pa. 110, 584 A.2d 915 (1990)

 

RULE:

Where a buyer in the business of reselling goods can prove that a breach by the seller has caused him to lose profitable resales, the buyer's lost profits constitute a form of consequential damages. 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2715, comment 6 (1978). In addition to general damages, there are three types of lost profit recoverable as consequential damages that may flow from a breach of warranty: (1) loss of primary profits; (2) loss of secondary profits; and (3) a loss of good will damages or prospective damages, as they are sometimes termed.

FACTS:

Parties entered into a contract whereby defendant would sell gasoline to plaintiffs. Gasoline sold did not conform to the parties warranties, and plaintiffs sued for breach of contract. Defendant moved for (and was granted) a demurrer on the grounds that plaintiffs had not stated a proper claim. Plaintiffs appealed on the grounds that they had stated a proper claim, and were at least entitled to have their case heard before a finder of fact.

ISSUE:

Whether the plaintiffs stated enough of a claim to withstand a demurrer?

ANSWER:

Yes, the plaintiffs stated enough of a claim to withstand a demurrer

CONCLUSION:

As plaintiffs stated a cause of action in their U.C.C. breach of warranty suit for damages against defendant for nonconforming gasoline, the court reversed and remanded the order of the superior court affirming dismissal of plaintiff's suit but otherwise affirmed.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.