Dushane v. Benedict
7 S. Ct. 696, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2008, 120 U.S. 630 (1887)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a seller's action for the price of goods, the buyer may assert a counterclaim for damages arising from the same transaction. A claim based on tort (e.g., fraudulent misrepresentation) can be used defensively for recoupment to reduce or defeat the seller's claim, while a claim based on contract (e.g., breach of warranty) can be used to obtain an affirmative recovery for damages exceeding the seller's claim, where permitted by statute.
Facts:
- Dushane, a rag-dealer, solicited and obtained an order from Benedict, a paper-maker, for good, merchantable rags free from infection.
- Benedict had no opportunity to inspect the rags before they were delivered.
- Dushane collected the rags in and around an area where he knew a smallpox epidemic was occurring.
- Dushane delivered rags to Benedict that were infected with the smallpox virus.
- When Benedict's employees began processing the rags, a smallpox outbreak occurred in their paper mill.
- As a result of the outbreak, some of Benedict's workmen died, others were disabled, the mill was forced to run short-handed, and the business suffered significant financial losses.
Procedural Posture:
- Dushane, a rag-dealer, sued Benedict, paper-makers, in the United States Circuit Court to recover $813.03, the price of rags sold.
- Benedict filed a plea with a counterclaim, asserting that the rags were infected and caused them over $7,000 in damages.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury that the evidence was insufficient to find that Dushane knowingly shipped infected rags or to properly estimate Benedict's damages.
- The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Dushane for the full amount of his claim.
- Judgment was entered for Dushane.
- Benedict appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a suit for the price of goods sold, may the buyer assert a counterclaim for consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach of warranty or fraudulent misrepresentation to not only defeat the seller's claim but also to obtain an affirmative recovery for any excess damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Gray
Yes, a buyer may assert such a counterclaim. The court distinguished between two legal doctrines available to the defendant under Pennsylvania law: recoupment and statutory set-off. Recoupment is an equitable defense arising from the common law that allows a defendant to reduce or defeat a plaintiff's claim by showing damages from the plaintiff's tortious act (like fraud) or breach of contract connected to the same transaction. Statutory set-off, under Pennsylvania's 'Defalcation Act,' goes further and allows a defendant to obtain an affirmative judgment for damages exceeding the plaintiff's claim, but it is only available for claims sounding in contract, such as a breach of warranty. The court found that Benedict presented sufficient evidence of both fraudulent misrepresentation (a tort) and a breach of the implied warranty of fitness (a contract claim) for the case to be submitted to a jury. Therefore, Benedict could use the fraud claim defensively for recoupment and the breach of warranty claim both defensively and offensively to seek an affirmative recovery.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between the defensive doctrine of recoupment and the offensive statutory right of set-off or counterclaim. It establishes that while a tort claim like fraud, arising from the same transaction, can shield a defendant from liability, an affirmative recovery against the plaintiff typically requires a contractual basis under statutes like Pennsylvania's. The case reinforces that consequential damages, such as lost profits and costs from business interruption, are recoverable for a breach of warranty or fraud if they are a natural consequence of the wrongful act. This influences litigation strategy by demonstrating how different legal theories (contract vs. tort) based on the same facts can unlock different levels of remedy for a defendant.
