Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Grant
1956 Wash. LEXIS 240, 49 Wash.2d 123, 298 P.2d 497 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may prove damages for lost profits with reasonable certainty through evidence of yields from a comparable, nearby property. The duty to mitigate damages may be excused when the breaching party provides repeated assurances that performance is imminent, and the plaintiff reasonably relies on those assurances.
Facts:
- On April 6, 1953, Theodore Grant purchased a crop sprinkling system from Sears, Roebuck and Co. under a conditional sales contract.
- Sears was aware that Grant intended to use the system to irrigate a 40-acre wheat crop he had planted the previous fall.
- Sears promised immediate delivery, but a crucial 320-foot section of two-inch pipe was not delivered until May 25th or 26th, approximately one month after the rest of the equipment.
- Grant needed the missing pipe to begin irrigating his crop around May 1st to prevent it from failing due to lack of moisture.
- During the period of delay, Sears repeatedly assured Grant that the missing pipe was in transit and would arrive any day.
- Due to the inability to irrigate, the majority of Grant's wheat crop failed.
- In an effort to mitigate damages, Grant plowed under twenty acres of the failed wheat and replanted the land with beans.
Procedural Posture:
- Sears, Roebuck and Co. filed an action in a trial court to recover possession of sprinkling equipment or its value from Theodore Grant.
- Grant filed a counterclaim against Sears, seeking damages for the loss of his wheat crop.
- A jury in the trial court found in favor of Grant on his counterclaim and awarded him damages of $2,828.
- The trial court entered a judgment for Grant in the amount of $1,318.18, which was the jury award less the value of the equipment Grant retained.
- Sears, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the reviewing court.
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 farmer provide sufficient evidence to prove damages for a lost crop with reasonable certainty by testifying about the yield of a comparable neighboring farm, and is the farmer's duty to mitigate damages excused by the seller's repeated assurances that the delayed delivery is imminent?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, J.
Yes. A farmer provides sufficient evidence of lost profits by testifying about the yields on comparable land, and the duty to mitigate is excused by reasonable reliance on the seller's assurances. The court held that Grant's testimony regarding the crop yield on a neighboring, similar tract of land was admissible to establish the amount of damages. The court reasoned that any objections to this evidence went to its weight, not its admissibility, and created a permissible inference for the jury to consider. Furthermore, the court found that the jury was entitled to conclude that Sears' repeated assurances of imminent delivery justified Grant's failure to take other steps to mitigate his damages, such as renting or buying alternative pipe. Grant's reliance on these assurances was reasonable under the circumstances, thus excusing him from a stricter duty to mitigate.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard of 'reasonable certainty' required to prove damages for lost profits, demonstrating that evidence from a comparable enterprise can be sufficient. It establishes that a fact-finder, such as a jury, has significant leeway in weighing such evidence, especially when the defendant offers no rebuttal. The decision also reinforces the principle that a breaching party's conduct, specifically providing assurances of performance, can excuse the non-breaching party's duty to mitigate. This prevents a defendant from causing a delay and then shifting the blame for the resulting damages onto the plaintiff for not independently solving the problem.
