Cole v. Melvin

441 F. Supp. 193

 

RULE:

If a reseller delays, but still bases a claim for recovery on the market price at the time and place for tender, the UCC will not help the seller if the market price has declined between the times of the breach, and the tardy resale.

FACTS:

Parties agreed to a sale of animals, and defendant was supposed to repurchase the animals if they became pregnant. Defendant breached the agreement, and did not repurchase the animals as quickly as he should have. Plaintiff looked to re-sell the animals, but delayed in his doing so. As a result, he lost money on then sale, and sued defendant to recover the lost money.

ISSUE:

Whether the parties had intended that defendant would be obligated to repurchase each animal that became pregnant, or whether defendant would be obligated to repurchase all animals, only if all were guaranteed safe in calf?

ANSWER:

The defendant would be obligated to repurchase all animals, if all were guaranteed safe in calf.

CONCLUSION:

In finding against the plaintiff, the Court ruled that the plaintiff's delay in re-selling the animals should not be held against the defendant in recovery, and should instead be held against the plaintiff in his attempt to recover.

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