Dangerfield v. Markel

278 N.W.2d 364

 

RULE:

If the buyer complies with the requirements of U.C.C. Section 2-712, his purchase is proper and the burden of proof is on the seller to show that cover was not properly obtained.

FACTS:

Appellant seller sought review of the judgment of the district court which awarded damages to appellee buyer in the buyer's action for breach of contract. The buyer also sought review of the district court's denial of incidental and consequential damages.

ISSUE:

Did the buyer comply with U.C.C. Section 2-712, act reasonably and in good faith to cover the seller's breach?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

The court affirmed the district court's judgment and denied any incidental or consequential damages. The court found that the buyer complied with U.C.C. Section 2-712, acted reasonably and in good faith to cover the seller's breach and was not obligated to purchase the entire cover on the day of breach or shortly thereafter to mitigate his damages. The original district court judge properly recused himself from proceedings determining the damage award after he concluded that his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned. There was no requirement under N.D. R. Civ. P. 52(b) that party wait until formal judgment had been entered, so the buyer's motion to amend the district court's finding was proper. The buyer was only entitled to recover for excess costs incurred as general damages because cover was effected and the seller's breach did not put the buyer out of business or impede the buyer's operations.

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