Overview
Case summary
This case involves a second appeal by Newark City Ice Co. after it breached a contract to accept and pay for ice from Fred S. Fisher. In the first appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a judgment for the defendant and remanded for assessment of damages. On remand, the circuit court calculated damages as the difference between the contract price and market value at the time of breach, less expenses saved by the plaintiff due to the breach. The defendant appealed this damages assessment, arguing errors in the measure applied. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the measure of damages was correct and in accordance with its prior suggestions, as it reflected the plaintiff's lost profits from the breach.
Abstract
The case is a second appeal following a breach of contract where the buyer failed to accept and pay for ice as agreed. After the first appeal reversed a judgment for the defendant and remanded for damages calculation, the trial court awarded damages based on the difference between the contract price and market value at breach, minus the plaintiff's saved expenses. The appellate court affirmed this measure as correctly reflecting the plaintiff's lost profits.
Opinion of the court
opinionBUTLER, District Judgejoined by DALLAS, Circuit Judge, WALES, District Judge
- Measure of damages for breach of contract to accept goods is lost profits calculated as contract price minus market value at breach time, less saved expenses
- Court's prior suggestions on damages measure were correct and followed on remand
- Plaintiff's readiness to deliver ice was established in first appeal; possession details are unimportant
- Defendant's assignments of error regarding damages measure cannot be sustained
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Case brought in Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey
- Appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Procedural posture
- Measure of damages applied by circuit court on remand
- Numerous assignments of error relating to measure of damages (court deemed unnecessary to discuss individually)
Subsequent history
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
Not explicitly stated, but implied de novo review of legal measure of damages
Measure of damages was in strict accordance with court's prior suggestions and correctly calculated lost profits as difference between contract price and market value at time of breach, less saved expenses
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Circuit court applied incorrect measure of damages on remand — procedural · no error foundNot applicable as no error found · not applicable
Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Measure of damages applied by circuit court — de novo Court reviewed legal measure of damages as a question of law, affirming its prior ruling
Timeline
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit decided second appeal affirming damages assessment
Outcome: Affirmed
Final disposition of case
Circuit court heard further testimony and assessed damages on remand as directed
Outcome: Damages assessed for plaintiff
Defendant appealed this damages assessment
First appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit reversed judgment and remanded for damages assessment
Outcome: Reversed and remanded
Established defendant's liability and directed damages calculation method
Circuit court entered judgment for defendant Newark City Ice Co. in breach of contract action
Outcome: Judgment for defendant
Led to first appeal where reversal occurred
Facts & evidence
Key facts
4 facts- Defendant Newark City Ice Co. breached contract to accept and pay for ice from plaintiff Fred S. Fisher
- Plaintiff had ice ready for delivery at time of breach
- First appeal reversed judgment for defendant and remanded for assessment of damages
- Second appeal challenges damages assessment on remand
Procedural history
4 steps- Circuit court initially entered judgment for defendant
- First appeal reversed and remanded for damages assessment (10 C. C. A. 546, 02 Fed. 569)
- Circuit court assessed damages on remand
- Defendant appeals damages assessment
Evidence in the record
- Plaintiff had ice ready for delivery at time of breach (established in first appeal)
- Contract for sale of ice (implied)
- Market value of ice at time of breach (implied from damages calculation)
Objects of relevance
Authorities
Cited authorities (1)
Related cases (1)
Standards & doctrines
- Measure of damages for breach of contract to accept goods
Legal principles applied
- Damages should compensate for actual loss from breach
- Expenses saved due to breach must be deducted from damages
Notable quotes
“The plaintiff’s loss by the defendant’s failure to accept and pay for the ice, was the loss of such profits as he would have realized if the ice had been accepted and paid for; and these profits consist of the difference between the contract price and the value of the ice in the market at the time when it should have been accepted — less the cost of loading, which the plaintiff was saved by the refusal to accept.”BUTLER, District Judge — Explaining the correct measure of damages for breach of contract to accept goodsDefines legal standard for calculating damages in such cases