Fertico Belgium S.A. v. Phosphate Chemicals Export Association case
brief summary
510 N.E.2d 334 (1987)
CASE FACTS
Appellant foreign corporation and respondent shipper entered into a contract for the shipment of fertilizer. The contract provided that the shipment was to be received by respondent on two different dates. Subsequently, respondent breached the contract by shipping the first installment of the fertilizer well after the date provided for in the contract. Thus, appellant was forced to find another shipper to provide the fertilizer, and to find another customer for the fertilizer shipped by respondent. Appellant filed suit for breach of contract under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The trial court found for appellant, and the lower appellate court vacated the award of damages to appellant.
DISCUSSION
The court modified the order of the lower appellate court vacating an award of damages to appellant foreign corporation against respondent shipper for breach of a shipping contract and awarded appellant damages. Appellant's cover of its damages by acquiring fertilizer from another shipper after respondent's breach was reasonable, and thus it was entitled to a damage remedy because its cover was made in good faith.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
510 N.E.2d 334 (1987)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant foreign corporation sought
review of an order by stipulation of judgment absolute from the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial
Department (New York), which vacated a damages award against
respondent shipper on appellant's action under the Uniform Commercial
Code to recover damages related to appellant's breach of a shipping
contract.CASE FACTS
Appellant foreign corporation and respondent shipper entered into a contract for the shipment of fertilizer. The contract provided that the shipment was to be received by respondent on two different dates. Subsequently, respondent breached the contract by shipping the first installment of the fertilizer well after the date provided for in the contract. Thus, appellant was forced to find another shipper to provide the fertilizer, and to find another customer for the fertilizer shipped by respondent. Appellant filed suit for breach of contract under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The trial court found for appellant, and the lower appellate court vacated the award of damages to appellant.
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed the vacating of the damages award, holding that under the UCC appellant was entitled to damages because its cover purchase was made in good faith and without unreasonable delay, and the fertilizer obtained from the second shipper was a reasonable substitute, as appellant had contracted to sell fertilizer.
- The action of selling the shipment of respondent's fertilizer to a third party after respondent's breach did not offset appellant's damages for the breach.
The court modified the order of the lower appellate court vacating an award of damages to appellant foreign corporation against respondent shipper for breach of a shipping contract and awarded appellant damages. Appellant's cover of its damages by acquiring fertilizer from another shipper after respondent's breach was reasonable, and thus it was entitled to a damage remedy because its cover was made in good faith.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment