Bush v. Canfield: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of Errors |citation=2 Conn. 485 (1818) |date=1818 |subject=Contracts }} '''Relevant Facts'''The defendant agreed to deliver to...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Relevant Facts''': | |||
The defendant agreed to deliver to the plaintiff a certain amount of flour on a specific date. The plaintiff paid a deposit of 5,000 dollars, and agreed to pay the remainder at a later time. One the date of delivery arrive, the market value of the flour had dropped from $7 per barrel to $5.50 per barrel. The defendant then refused to deliver the flour. | |||
''' | |||
'''''' | |||
'''Procedural History''': | |||
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 6,771 dollars in the deposit plus interest, to which the defendant appeals. | |||
'''''Issues''': <br />'' | |||
''Whether the plaintiff was entitled to expectancy damages or restitution damages.'' | |||
'''Holding/Decision''': | |||
Judgment affirmed, new trial not to be granted. | |||
'''''' | |||
'''Rules''': | |||
The true measure of damages is what will completely indemnify the plaintiff for the breach of the engagement, which in this case is returning all that has been paid. | |||
'''''' | |||
'''Dissent''': | |||
A fallacy has existed in not ascribing the loss to the right cause, it did not arise from the non-performance of the defendant. | |||
Revision as of 18:55, January 31, 2020
| Bush v. Canfield | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Errors |
|---|---|
| Citation | 2 Conn. 485 (1818) |
| Date decided | 1818 |
Relevant Facts:
The defendant agreed to deliver to the plaintiff a certain amount of flour on a specific date. The plaintiff paid a deposit of 5,000 dollars, and agreed to pay the remainder at a later time. One the date of delivery arrive, the market value of the flour had dropped from $7 per barrel to $5.50 per barrel. The defendant then refused to deliver the flour.
'
Procedural History:
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 6,771 dollars in the deposit plus interest, to which the defendant appeals.
Issues:
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to expectancy damages or restitution damages.
Holding/Decision:
Judgment affirmed, new trial not to be granted.
'
Rules:
The true measure of damages is what will completely indemnify the plaintiff for the breach of the engagement, which in this case is returning all that has been paid.
'
Dissent:
A fallacy has existed in not ascribing the loss to the right cause, it did not arise from the non-performance of the defendant.
