This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Bush v. Canfield: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Relevant Facts''': | '''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. | 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''': | '''Procedural History''': | ||
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 6,771 dollars in the deposit plus interest, to which the defendant appeals. | 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''': | '''Holding/Decision''': | ||
Judgment affirmed, new trial not to be granted. | Judgment affirmed, new trial not to be granted. | ||
'''Rules''': | '''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. | 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''': | '''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. | A fallacy has existed in not ascribing the loss to the right cause, it did not arise from the non-performance of the defendant. | ||
Latest revision as of 18:56, 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.
