Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. J. B. Beaird Co.
63 So. 2d 144, 222 La. 627 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seller who retains goods after a buyer's breach of a sales contract is not entitled to damages if the market price of the goods at the time of trial is greater than the contract price, because the seller has suffered no actual loss.
Facts:
- In February 1949, Friedman Iron and Supply Company entered into a contract to sell 500 tons of scrap steel to J. B. Beaird Company, Inc. for $41 per ton.
- The contract stipulated that delivery would occur on dates specified by J. B. Beaird.
- On March 7, 1949, J. B. Beaird notified Friedman not to ship any steel until it provided a written request.
- On March 8, 1949, J. B. Beaird sent a written cancellation of the entire order.
- On March 12, 1949, Friedman requested that J. B. Beaird accept the steel, which Friedman had already purchased, assembled, and stockpiled specifically for the contract.
- J. B. Beaird refused to accept the delivery or pay the purchase price.
- Friedman retained possession of the 500 tons of segregated scrap steel on its yard.
- At the time of trial, over a year after the breach, the market price for the same type of scrap steel had risen to between $47 and $47.50 per ton.
Procedural Posture:
- Friedman Iron and Supply Company sued J. B. Beaird Company, Inc. in a Louisiana trial court, seeking specific performance or, alternatively, damages.
- The trial court dismissed Friedman's claim for specific performance based on an exception of no cause of action.
- The case proceeded to trial on the merits solely on Friedman's alternative claim for damages for breach of contract.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, J. B. Beaird Company, Inc., and dismissed Friedman's suit for damages.
- Friedman Iron and Supply Company, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a seller who retains goods after a buyer's breach of contract suffer legally compensable damages when the market price of the goods at the time of trial is higher than the original contract price?
Opinions:
Majority - Hawthorne, J.
No. A seller who retains goods after a buyer's breach does not suffer compensable damages where the market price at trial exceeds the contract price. The primary principle of damages for breach of contract is to place the plaintiff in the same position they would have occupied had the contract been fulfilled, not to enrich them. While the standard measure of damages is often the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of the breach, this rule does not apply when it leads to a result contrary to the compensatory purpose of damages. Here, since Friedman still possessed the steel and its market value had increased significantly above the contract price, an award of damages would place Friedman in a much better position than full performance would have. The court also clarified that although a seller has a right to resell goods to establish the quantum of damages, a resale is not a mandatory condition precedent to filing suit for breach.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental compensatory principle of contract damages, establishing that mechanical application of a standard damages formula (contract price minus market price at breach) will be set aside if it results in a windfall for the non-breaching party. The court clarifies that prior judicial statements suggesting a seller has a 'duty' to resell goods were merely dicta. The ruling affirms that a seller has a right, but not an obligation, to resell. However, it also establishes that a seller who chooses to retain the goods does so at their own risk, and cannot recover damages if market fluctuations ultimately erase any actual financial loss.
Unlock the full brief for Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. J. B. Beaird Co.