Case Name: KREBS HOP CO. v. LIVESLEY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1911-04-04
Citations: 59 Or. 574
Docket Number: 
Parties: KREBS HOP CO. v. LIVESLEY.
Judges: Mr. Justice Burnett took no part in the consideration of this case. Mr. Justice McBride dissents.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 574–591

Head Matter:
Argued Feb. 23,
decided April 4,
affirmed on rehearing Oct. 3, 1911.
KREBS HOP CO. v. LIVESLEY.
[114 Pac. 944: 118 Pac. 165.]
Contracts — Breach—Remedies.
1. One party to a contract cannot, by any act or declaration respecting his intention not to perform, compel the other party to immediately seek his redress as for a breach; but the latter may await the time for performance, and, on breach, elect between the remedies open to him at that time.
Action — Splitting Cause of Action — Severable Contract.
2. Severable contracts may be severed for the purpose of enforcing rights as they accrue.
Sales — Nature—Entire and Severable.
3. Where a corporation agreed to sell a partnership 500,000 pounds of hops to be raised during the five succeeding years, 100,000 pounds to be sold each year, the contract was severable, each installment being separate; and hence a failure of the seller to offer to deliver the crop of one year would not preclude his recovery upon a refusal of the purchaser to accept the crop of another year.
Judgment — Conclusiveness—Matters Concluded.
4. Where a contract for the sale of 500,000 pounds of hops provided that 100,000 pounds of the growth of each of five successive years should be delivered by the 15th of October of each year, a recovery for the purchaser’s refusal to accept the hops for one year would not preclude a recovery for a refusal to accept the hops of a subsequent year.
Sales— Measure of Damages— Breach of Contract— Failure to Perform — Market Value.
5. The seller’s measure of damages for refusal to accept goods is the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time and place of delivery, though the purchaser offers the seller a slightly greater price than the market value, as the seller is not required to accept it.
Sales — Remedy of Seller — Measure of Damages — Reduction of Damage.
6. A purchaser of hops repudiated his contract, but at the same time offered to buy from the seller, at a price slightly in advance of the market price, the amount of hops he had contracted for. Held, that the refusal of the seller to accept the purchaser’s second offer for the hops could not deprive him of the right to recover the difference between the contract and the market price of the hops at the time and place of delivery; for the acceptance of that offer would have imperiled his rights under the first contract, on the theory that the second contract supplanted it.
Sales — Remedies of Seller in General.
7. On the refusal of a purchaser to accept goods, the vendor may either hold the property for the purchaser and recover the entire purchase money, or sell them after notice to the purchaser, as his agent, and recover the difference between the contract price and the selling price, or may retain them as his own, and recover the difference between the contract and market prices at the time and place of delivery.
From Marion: George H. Burnett, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Bean.
This is an action for damages by the Krebs Hop Company against T. A. Livesley & Co., on account of the failure of the latter to perform certain conditions of the following contract, during the year 1908:
“Salem, Oregon, August 25, 1904.
“In consideration of one dollar, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, Krebs Hop Company, a corporation doing business under the laws of the State of Oregon, sells, and T. A. Livesley & Co., copartnership, buys five hundred thousand pounds of prime Oregon hops, subject to inspection by T. A. Livesley & Co., or their authorized agent, at the agreed price of fourteen cents per pound, said hops to be the product of and to be grown on the Krebs Hop Company, Buena Vista Farm, better known as the Henderson W. Murphy farm, situated on the west bank of the Willamette River, being about three miles S. E. of Independence, in Polk County, Oregon, on the left-hand side of the wagon road, going from Independ ence to Beuna Vista, the said purchaser to have the preference and right of selection over all other contracts. Said hops to be delivered as follows: One hundred thousand pounds (100,000) of the growth of 1905, one hundred thousand pounds (100,000) of the growth of 1906, one hundred thousand pounds (100,000) of the growth of 1907, one hundred thousand pounds (100,000) of the growth of 1908, and one hundred thousand pounds (100,-000) of the growth of 1909, f. o. b. cars Independence, Oregon, or f. o. b. boat Murphy’s Landing, not later than October 15th of each of the above years. In case there are not a sufficient amount of prime hops grown on the above-described farm to fulfill said contract, the seller agrees to deliver hops of like quality grown elsewhere in fulfillment of said contract. This contract is not transferable without the written consent of both parties hereto and to be binding upon the assigns, executors and administrators. The buyers agree to pay the purchase price in the following manner, to wit: Two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) between the first and fifteenth of April of each year and two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) between the first and fifteenth of May of each year and six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) between the first and fifth of September of each year and the balance, four thousand dollars (($4,000.00) on delivery and acceptance by the buyers of said hops, each year, during the life of this contract, cultivation advances to bear interest at the rate of six per cent.
“Witnessed by
.................................... “Krebs Hop Company sellers,
.................................... “By Conrad Krebs, nresident.
“T. A. Livesley & Co., buyers.
“[Corporate Seal.]”
Plaintiff alleges that it is a corporation; that the defendants are partners, and, after setting out the contract in extenso, alleges in substance that in previous years the defendants designated the place of delivery, where the hops were accordingly delivered; that, in order to ascertain where it would be expected to make such delivery on October 15, 1908, plaintiff notified defendants it had 100,000 pounds of hops ready for delivery, ' and requested to know the place defendants desired same to be delivered, to which notice defendants replied by letter, refusing to designate either place or point of delivery, stating that they did not regard the contract as in force, and declining to recognize the same in any way. Plaintiff further alleges that it duly complied with and performed all the conditions of the contract on its part to be kept and performed, and that it was, on the 15th of October, 1908, and prior thereto, ready and willing to deliver 100,-000 pounds of prime Oregon hops, grown in 1908 on the premises described in the contract, to defendants at either of the places mentioned, and had defendants named such place of delivery and attended thereat to receive the hops, would have tendered and delivered same. But because of the wrongful conduct of the defendants, plaintiff was unable either to deliver or tender delivery of said hops. That defendants wrongfully failed, neglected, and refused to receive said hops, and to pay plaintiff therefor according to the terms of said contract, or at all, and that upon said date hops of the kind and quality described in said contract were worth in the market, at the time and place of delivery, seven cents per pound, and no more.
The defendants by their answer put in issue all the allegations of the complaint, except the incorporation of plaintiff, the partnership of defendants, the execution of the contract, and the market value of the hops on October 15, 1908, in addition thereto setting up seven affirmative defenses as follows: (1) In bar, the sale of the hopyard to Ladd & Bush, and the assignment of the payments to accrue thereon; that thereby the plaintiff made default in the contract, for which default the defendants on the 24th day of March, 1906, rescinded the contract. (2) In estoppel, that plaintiff, after the execution of the contract, conveyed the hopyard and assigned the contract without the knowledge of defendants, and abandoned and retired from the contract, and that by reason thereof defendants themselves retired from and rescinded the contract. (3) Plaintiff’s breach of the contract in the year 1906 in not delivering or offering to deliver any hops during that year. (4) In estoppel, all the matters set forth in the second and third defenses. (5) Plaintiff’s claim that hops were worth but seven cents per pound should not be heard, because defendants offered to pay eight cents per pound therefor, for which plaintiff refused to sell. (6) The recovery of the judgment on the contract of August 25, 1904, in the action brought by plaintiff against defendants in January, 1908. (7) Defendants pleaded in estoppel judgment in the action commenced in January, 1908: Krebs Hop Co. v. Livesley, 55 Or. 227 (104 Pac. 3).
Trial was had, resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $7,000, from which defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
For appellants there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. Wirt Minor and Mr. William M. Kaiser.
For respondent there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. John A. Carson and Mr. Thomas Brown.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Bean
delivered the opinion of the court.