Case Name: Bernard Dreyfuss, Pl'ff and Resp't, v. Meyer Foster et al., D'fts and App'lts
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-12-20
Citations: 19 N.Y. St. Rep. 683
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bernard Dreyfuss, Pl’ff and Resp’t, v. Meyer Foster et al., D’fts and App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 19
Pages: 683–690

Head Matter:
Bernard Dreyfuss, Pl’ff and Resp’t, v. Meyer Foster et al., D’fts and App’lts.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
Filed December 20, 1888.)
1. Contract of sale—Refusal of vendee to receive the goods—Hi* LIABILITY FOR STORAGE CHARGES.
Where goods were manufactured under a contract of sale and the vendee refused to receive the goods, the vendor notified him to the effect that unless he accepted the goods on or before a day named in the notice, he would thereafter charge him storage at a sum specified per day. Held, that such a notice would not render the vendee liable for the charges threatened to be made, and that no contract to pay for the storage could be implied from the circumstances.
2. Same—Remedies of vendor.
In an action by the vendor against the vendee in such a case, the vendor has the choice of three remedies: (1) To treat the goods as belonging to vendee and sue for the contract price. (2) To sell the goods on notice at the market price and sue the vendee for the difference between the sum realized and the contract price. (3) Regard the contract as forfeited and retain the property as his own and sue the vendee for damages for nonperformance of the contract, in which case the damages are limited to the difference between the contract price and the market value. The election, however, as to the form of the remedy having been once made is determined forever.
3. Same—When vendee liable for storage charges and to what extent.
If the vendor should elect to sell the goods on the vendee’s account at the market price, he may, in such case, store the goods at their expense preparatory to a resale of them, and recover the warehouse rental during such time as would have been reasonably required to sell the goods to advantage, but for no longer time. A plaintiff in protecting himself must do no unnecessary act to the injury of the defendant.
4. Same—Rights of vendor different from those of a gratuitous BAILEE.
The rule applicable to a gratuitous bailee, having no interest in the goods, who desires to terminate the bailment, has no application to such a case as the case at bar.
5. Same—Vendor having elected to sue for contract price cannot RECOVER STORAGE CHARGES AS SPECIAL DAMAGES.
Where the plaintiff having, in effect, elected to sue for the contract price, although the action is seemingly in form for damages for the breach, and his claim for storage was made the subject of special damages, Held, that there was no warrant for charging storage to vendee when he never authorized the expenditure and when no pressing exigency made the charge necessary.
6. Same—Measure of damages for breach.
The vendee is only liable for such damages as natura..y arise from the breach of the contract, and not those arising from accidental, remote or consequential causes. The contract itself furnishes the data from which the damages are to be estimated, and those naturally arising from the breach of the contract in such case are; (1) The contract price; (2) the difference between the sum realized on a resale and the contract price; and (3) the difference between the contract price and the market value, depending upon the remedy pursued and interest upon the sum withheld -after it has become the duty of the debtor to discharge the debt.
Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
Jos. E. Newburger, atty. for app’lts; B. F. Einstein, of counsel; Frankenheimer & Rosenblatt, attys. for resp’t;. John Frankenheimer, of counsel.

Opinion:
Ehrlich, J.
The complaint contains a single cause of action which is for damages direct and consequential, claimed for the breach of a written contract; three elements of damage are alleged, first, refusal to accept or permit a 'delivery of 564 busts; second, refusal to pay one,half the-cost of a .model and, third, as an item of special damage, $5.64 per day from February 27, 1886, to the date of the-trial of the action, as the value of the use of the space in .plaintiff's factory, occupied by the 564 busts, in consequence of defendants' wrongful refusal to accept the same.
Prior to the trial, an order for judgment on the pleadings .had been made covering the first two items of damages, the-amount thereof had been paid, and the action continued as-to the third item.
I am in favor of a reversal of the judgment appealed from on the broad ground that the action is one for damages ior breach of contract, and not for the agreed price of goods to-be manfactured, and that the order for judgment is not an adjudication inconsistent with this construction, nor is defendant estopped or otherwise precluded from resisting for this reason, the claim for storage.
The complaint distinctly alleges that defendants refused to accept or permit a delivery, and claims damages therefor;, therefore it should be held that there was no delivery either in fact or in law, without which the title could not pass.
I think also that the learned court below erred in allowing evidence as to the cost or value of cartage, and the value of storage room in plaintiff's factory, and that the latter error was not cured by the charge.
The judgment should he reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.