Case Name: Milburn-Johnston Grocer Company v. Davis
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1927-12-19
Citations: 175 Ark. 816
Docket Number: 
Parties: Milburn-Johnston Grocer Company v. Davis.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 816–820

Head Matter:
Milburn-Johnston Grocer Company v. Davis.
Opinion delivered December 19, 1927.
Mehaffy £ Miller and Culbert L. Pearce, for appellant.
McMillen £ Scott, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hart, C. J.,_
(after stating the facts). The judgment of the circuit court was wrong. Under the terms of 'the original contract, the bagging and ties were to be delivered by' October 1, 1925. Up to this time the defendant had only delivered to the plaintiff 600 rolls of bagging, so that there was still due under the contract 400 rolls of bagging. The failure to deliver the bagging in the time required by the contract constituted a breach of the contract on the part of the defendant; but, according to the plaintiff's own testimony, this breach was waived by it. On November 19, 1925, Johnston, as president and manager of the plaintiff company, wrote to the defendant that the plaintiff would accept the remaining 400 rolls of bagging under the contract if delivery was made at once. The defendant delayed delivering the 400 rolls of bagging until the latter part of December, 1925. This did not constitute a shipment and delivery at once, as required by the plaintiff.
The court, in instructing a verdict for the defendant, proceeded upon the theory that this additional breach of the contract was waived by the plaintiff accepting 200 rolls of the-bagging when it was delivered in the latter part of December, 1925, and based its ruling upon Truemper v. Thane Lumber Co., 154 Ark. 524, 242 S. W. 823. In that case there was acceptance of money for a shipment of logs after knowledge of a breach of the contract. There the money was received in payment of the logs in performance of the contract, and the other party had a right to consider that a breach of the contract had been waived by the acceptance of the money in part performance of it. Here the facts are different. The letter of November 19,1925, written by Johnston to the defendant, was a waiver of all breaches of the contract which had occurred prior to that time, under the doctrine of the case just cited.
It became the duty of the defendant, however, to ship the remaining 400 rolls of the bagging promptly. This he did not do, and his delay in delivering the 400 rolls of bagging constituted an additional breach of the contract. It cannot be said, however, that, because the plaintiff received 200 rolls of this bagging, it waived this breach of the contract. If it had accepted the 400 rolls of bagging, the contract .would have been at an end by performance on the part of the defendant and acceptance by the plaintiff. The plaintiff would have had the right, however, to reject the whole 400 rolls of bagging because of the delay in delivering it. Under the settled rules of law in this State, however, it would have been the duty of the plaintiff to minimize its damages ; and if, by the exercise of reasonable prudence on its part, it could have purchased similar bagging in the market in the fulfillment of its contract, it would have been required to do so. Young v. Berman, 96 Ark. 78, 131 S. W. 62, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 977. Hence the action of the plaintiff in receiving the '200 rolls of bag ging which could be used by it was the exercise of a reasonable effort on its part to reduce the damages suffered by it, and did not in any sense amount to an acceptance of the bagging under the terms of the contract so as to constitute a waiver of the breach of it.
In this view of the matter, under the plaintiff's own evidence it is. only entitled to damages for the failure to deliver 200 rolls of bagging promptly after its letter of November 19, and the measure of damages in such a case would be the difference between the 'contract price and the market price of similar 'bagging' at the time and place when the 400 rolls should have been delivered pursuant to the letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant on November 19,1925. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co. v. Bushmaier, 165 Ark. 303, 264 S. W. 830.
For the error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant the judgment must be reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial.