Case Name: Coast Fir Lumber Company, Appellant, v. Puget Sound Mills & Timber Company, Respondent
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1921-11-15
Citations: 117 Wash. 515
Docket Number: No. 16520
Parties: Coast Fir Lumber Company, Appellant, v. Puget Sound Mills & Timber Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 515–521

Head Matter:
[No. 16520.
En Banc.
November 15, 1921.]
Coast Fir Lumber Company, Appellant, v. Puget Sound Mills & Timber Company, Respondent.
Sales (156) — Breach op Contract — Failure to Deliver — Measure op Damages. The measure of damages for breach of contract for the sale of shingles being the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of the seller’s breach, recovery may be had based upon the price in the following August, when there was an unequivocal refusal to perform, although they should have been delivered within a reasonable time (Fullerton, Holcomb, and Tolman, JJ., dissent).
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Frater, J., entered September 11, 1920, upon findings in favor of the defendant, in an action on contract, tried to the court.
Reversed.
Bausman, Oldham, Bullitt & Eggerman and Walter L. Nossaman, for appellant.
Kerr, McCord & Ivey and Wm. Z. Kerr, for respondent.
Reported in 201 Pac. 747.

Opinion:
Mackintosh, J.
This is a suit for damages because of respondent's failure to deliver two carloads of shingles, claimed to have been ordered by the appellant. The reasonable conclusion of fact to be drawn from the documentary evidence is that, in January, 1919, the appellant ordered from the respondent, who was a manufacturer of shingles, two shipments of two carloads each, and that the latter order was filled but the former was not.
The only matter for determination is the amount of the appellant's damages, which are to be measured by the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of the respondent's breach. Although the shingles should have been delivered within a reasonable time after their order, the respondent at that time did not repudiate the contract, and it was not until sometime in August following that the appellants were justified in treating the expressions of the respondent in regard to the order as amounting to an unequivocal refusal to perform. The contract price being $2.10 per thousand, and the evidence showing that, at the time of the repudiation, the fair market price was about $4.60 per thousand, and the evidence showing that each carload contains 200,000 shingles, the appellant is entitled to judgment for $1,000.
Judgment of the lower court reversed, with directions to enter judgment in the amount named.
Parker, C. J., Bridges, Main, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.