R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Vanguard Transp. Systems, Inc.
case brief summary
641 F. Supp. 2d 707 (2009)
CASE FACTS
The case arose from an admittedly delayed delivery by defendant of advertising brochures announcing a post-Christmas sale. The brochures were delivered to plaintiff's distribution center on December 27, 2005 -- eleven days after the promised date of delivery. Defendant admitted that the delivery did not occur until December 27, but claimed plaintiff caused the problem by refusing to let defendant's driver unload the truck. Plaintiff claimed that it could and would have mitigated its damages by retaining a local cartage company to deliver the load if only defendant had told the truth about not having a driver to redeliver the load and not having misled it on a daily basis.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment was entered in favor of defendant.
Suggested law school study materials




Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
641 F. Supp. 2d 707 (2009)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff commercial printer filed suit
against defendant interstate motor carrier alleging breach of
contract.CASE FACTS
The case arose from an admittedly delayed delivery by defendant of advertising brochures announcing a post-Christmas sale. The brochures were delivered to plaintiff's distribution center on December 27, 2005 -- eleven days after the promised date of delivery. Defendant admitted that the delivery did not occur until December 27, but claimed plaintiff caused the problem by refusing to let defendant's driver unload the truck. Plaintiff claimed that it could and would have mitigated its damages by retaining a local cartage company to deliver the load if only defendant had told the truth about not having a driver to redeliver the load and not having misled it on a daily basis.
DISCUSSION
- The court found that beyond pointing out how easy it would have been for defendant to have rented a truck from a local company and delivered the brochures, plaintiff's post trial briefs had effectively nothing to say about its own duty to mitigate damages.
- The court also found that because plaintiff chose to do nothing, as it had the right to do, the avoidable loss of more than $ 80,000 could not be taxed to defendant.
- Finally, the court found that plaintiff was not entitled to damages or to attorney's fees.
CONCLUSION
Judgment was entered in favor of defendant.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
No comments:
Post a Comment