KGM Harvesting Co. v. Fresh Network: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "'''Facts''': KGM Harvesting Co. sold lettuce, under contract, in large quantities to Fresh Network. Fresh, in turn, sold the lettuce to other buyers. When the price of lettuce mo...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Facts''': KGM Harvesting Co. sold lettuce, under contract, in large quantities to Fresh Network. Fresh, in turn, sold the lettuce to other buyers. When the price of lettuce more than doubled, KGM made a profit by selling to other buyers and not selling to Fresh. Fresh covered by buying elsewhere, but at a loss of approx. $700,000.
{{Infobox Case Brief
 
|subject=Contracts
'''Procedural History''': Jury determined that KGM breached contract, and the buyer was entitled to $655,906.22 with interest accruing from 30 days before trial. Seller appealed.
|case_treatment=No
 
|facts=KGM Harvesting Co. sold lettuce, under contract, in large quantities to Fresh Network. Fresh, in turn, sold the lettuce to other buyers. When the price of lettuce more than doubled, KGM made a profit by selling to other buyers and not selling to Fresh. Fresh covered by buying elsewhere, but at a loss of approx. $700,000.
'''Issue''': Is Fresh entitled to the damages awarded?
|procedural_history=Jury determined that KGM breached contract, and the buyer was entitled to $655,906.22 with interest accruing from 30 days before trial. Seller appealed.
 
|issues=Is Fresh entitled to the damages awarded?
'''Holding''': Yes
|holding=Yes
 
|judgment=Affirmed and reversed (damage was increased to add interest starting at the time of the filing of the original complaint).
'''Reasons''': Buyer should be in same position as if contract had been performed on both sides.
|reasons=Buyer should be in same position as if contract had been performed on both sides.
 
}}
'''Judgment''': Affirmed and reversed (damage was increased to add interest starting at the time of the filing of the original complaint).
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]]

Revision as of 19:56, February 22, 2022

KGM Harvesting Co. v. Fresh Network
Court
Citation
Date decided

Facts

KGM Harvesting Co. sold lettuce, under contract, in large quantities to Fresh Network. Fresh, in turn, sold the lettuce to other buyers. When the price of lettuce more than doubled, KGM made a profit by selling to other buyers and not selling to Fresh. Fresh covered by buying elsewhere, but at a loss of approx. $700,000.

Procedural History

Jury determined that KGM breached contract, and the buyer was entitled to $655,906.22 with interest accruing from 30 days before trial. Seller appealed.

Issues

Is Fresh entitled to the damages awarded?

Holding

Yes

Judgment

Affirmed and reversed (damage was increased to add interest starting at the time of the filing of the original complaint).

Reasons

Buyer should be in same position as if contract had been performed on both sides.

Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=KGM_Harvesting_Co._v._Fresh_Network&oldid=41793"