Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-12-27
Kennebee County Reseript.

The following reScript has been re-
ceiyed by Clerk of Courts Choate in
the Kennebec county case of South
Gardiner Lumber Co. VS.. J. S. & F. t.
Bradstreet. Rescript. Peabody. "
BY the contract between the parties,
the defendants agreed to sell to the
plainHff and to deliver to it at the Hal
lowell boom 100000 feet of logs in the
season of 1899, at the market price.
The nlaintiff agreed to pay and did pay
81 a thousand. or $4,000, March Is,
1899, lin advance of delivery. 1t was
agreed that the plaintiff should be en-
titled to a discount of 2 per cent. on the
BALANCE. if paid in cash at delivery.
The defendants delivered 1,e43, 4aOs feet
of logs, and, as the COURT finds, unjusti-
fiably refused to deliver the remainder.
The court finds also that the date of
this breach OF the contract was Aug.
%, 1899, the day on which the Halo
well boom was closed. This suit is
brought to recover damages for nom
delivery of logs, to recover the balance
OF the $4,000 after payment for the
logs delivered. and for special damages.
The court is of opinion, under the
evidence, that the contract price, which
in the contract was called the mar
ket price" must be deemed to be the
market price at the place of delivery
i'm the months of February and
March," 1899. And as there were no
sales of logs at Hallowell boom at that
time so as to establish market price,
Il is considered that, under the cir
cumstances of this case, the market
price of logs at Moosehead Lake dam,
with the cost added of delivering them
into the HallCwell boom, should be re-
garded as the contract price. And this
price .the court finds to have been
S1O.9g a thousand. The value of the
logs at Hallowell boom at the time
when they should have been delivered
the court finds was $11.50 thousand.
The difference between the contract
price and the price at Hallowell boom
ut the time when the logs should have
been delivered is the measure of dam
ages for non-delivery. But to reduce
both elements to the same cash basis,
2 ner cent. is deducted from the con-
tract price less the 81 a thousand ad-
Vancesl, and also from the market price.
at time and place of delivery. Apply
ing these principles, the court finds
that the damages, under the first count,
for non delivery, amounted to S2116.11,
to which interest is to be added from
the date of the breach of contract.
The plaintiff advanced $4,000.
March Is. 1899, as already stated. OF
this sum $20SE was the advanced pay
ments of 81 per, thousand on the logs
delivered. on the balance. interest is
to bc.allowed from the date of payment
until lthere was a delivery of logs.
Against this balance with interest is
to be credited the amount remaining
due for logs delivered, less a deduC ton
of per cent for cash. The remain
der il s9s51S And this sum. with in
terast from the date Of the breach. is
the amount the plaintiff is entitled to
recover under the third count.
In the absence of definite agree
ment, the market price of goods to be
delivered is the price prevailing at the
time and place of delivery: but if there
is no market price at the place OF de-
livery, .fhc value of the goods should
be determined at the nearest place
where they have a market price by the
addition or deduction of the difference
in the cost of delivery.
Notice from the seller that he will
not deliver the goods is no breach until
the time of delivery is past. Antici
pated injury is not the ground Of legal
recovery.
The general rule of damages fer the
non delivery of goods excludes the eia-
ments of profits ana losses.
Where it appears that both parties
understood that special circumstances
existed, which would affect the subject
matter of the contract. and reasonably
contemplate the damages which would
result from its breach, gains prevented
thereby may be recovered as damages.
Bat the damages must be such as may
fairly be supposed to have been in the
contemplation of the parties at the
time when they made the contract.
The facts before the court do not
bring this case within the foregoing
rule foI@ aiecial damages, and none are
allowed.
Judgment for the plaintiff for
S36S1.35. with interest from Aug. 20.
1892 to the date of judgment.
Reed. Dec. 26. 1902.