Martella v. Woods
36 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1200, 715 F.2d 410 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Uniform Commercial Code § 2-712, a buyer's purchase of substitute goods does not qualify as proper "cover" if the substitute goods are of a significantly higher quality than those the seller was obligated to provide, as this would place the buyer in a better position than if the contract had been performed.
Facts:
- On December 2, 1976, James H. Woods, Jr. contracted with Arkavalley Farm to purchase young heifers, raise them, allow them to be bred by Arkavalley's bulls, and then sell them back to Arkavalley between 24 and 30 months of age.
- Woods purchased 190 heifers, but they did not grow as quickly as anticipated, with many failing to reach the target weight for breeding at the expected age.
- Between March and May 1979, Woods sold 41 bred heifers back to Arkavalley pursuant to the contract.
- On May 5, 1979, Woods informed Arkavalley that he was losing money on the deal and intended to sell the remaining 144 heifers to third parties, thereby repudiating the contract.
- Woods rejected Arkavalley's subsequent offer to purchase the remaining heifers and proceeded to sell them to third persons.
- To compensate for the undelivered heifers, Arkavalley purchased 50 replacement heifers from other sellers.
- These 50 replacement heifers were all pregnant and weighed significantly more (1,100-1,200 pounds) than the heifers Woods was contractually obligated to sell, of which only a fraction were pregnant and of a lower average weight.
Procedural Posture:
- Arkavalley Farm sued James H. Woods, Jr. in federal district court for breach of contract.
- The district court (a U.S. Magistrate, by consent) found that Woods had breached the contract.
- The district court awarded Arkavalley $43,248 in damages for cover and $64,529.60 in damages for nondelivery, but denied its claim for lost profits.
- Woods (appellant) appealed the judgment, including the damage awards, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- Arkavalley Farm (appellee) cross-appealed the district court's refusal to award lost profits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, does a buyer's purchase of substitute goods that are of a significantly higher quality and value than the goods the seller was contractually obligated to provide constitute a reasonable 'cover'?
Opinions:
Majority - Bright, J.
No. A buyer's procurement of substitute goods does not constitute a valid 'cover' if the goods are not a like-kind substitute and place the buyer in a better position than if the original contract had been performed. The Uniform Commercial Code § 2-712 allows a buyer to purchase reasonable substitutes and recover the price difference, but this remedy requires that the buyer act in good faith and that the substitute goods be a 'like-kind substitute.' Here, the contract did not require Woods to deliver pregnant heifers of a certain weight; it only required him to sell back the heifers he was raising. Arkavalley purchased replacement heifers that were all pregnant and substantially heavier than Woods's herd. By purchasing these superior heifers, Arkavalley put itself in a better position than it would have been in had Woods performed. Therefore, the purchase was not a reasonable like-kind substitute, and the award of cover damages was improper.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'like-kind substitute' requirement for the remedy of cover under UCC § 2-712. The court's decision emphasizes that cover is a mechanism to make the non-breaching party whole, not to provide a windfall or allow for an upgrade at the breaching party's expense. The ruling establishes that courts will compare the quality, condition, and specifications of the contract goods with the substitute goods to determine if the cover was reasonable. This precedent requires buyers seeking cover damages to demonstrate that their substitute purchases are commercially comparable to what they were originally promised, reinforcing the compensatory nature of contract damages.
