Opinion ID: 1144928
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: error in instructing on and submitting the issue of damages

Text: Seller asserts several errors in the trial court's instruction on consequential damages. Its first complaint is that the instruction was improper since the express warranty excluded liability for consequential damages. This argument is untenable because the evidence was in dispute with respect to the buyer's receipt of a printed text of the warranty. Seller next argues there is no evidence to show the crops were lost as a result of breached warranty. According to the record, a bearing went out shortly after buyer began harvesting his milo crop. The machine was inoperable while he was waiting for delivery of the spare part. Once the combine was fixed, heavy rains prevented the buyer from immediately re-entering the field. Birds then destroyed the milo crop before it could be harvested. Buyer also experienced difficulty with the combine when harvesting his soybean crop. After attempting to repair the machine, rains once again prevented him from entering the field before he lost the soybean crop. Seller advances the argument that unseasonable rains were an independent, unforeseeable and distinct agency which interacted with a malfunctioning combine to produce the losses. We cannot agree with seller's position. During harvesting time farmers are constantly faced with the possibility that bad weather conditions may cause damage to their crops. It is of utmost importance that harvesting equipment be at all times in working condition during this critical period. The evidence was hence legally sufficient to support the instruction on damages proximately caused by breached warranty. [13] Seller's final complaint of vice in submission of damages is that there was no sufficient basis in evidence for jury's determination of consequential damages for lost crops. With this argument we agree. The record reflects the buyer testified as to the probable gross value of the crops he lost, but there is nothing on the fair-market cost of harvesting, transporting and other incidental expenses. The net amount of loss is hence left to conjecture. [14] Consequential damages may be awarded for loss resulting from general or particular requirements of the buyer which are reasonably known to seller at the time of purchase. [15] The UCC comments to § 2-715(2) emphasize a liberal view with respect to the administration of these remedies. Mathematical precision is not required. [16] In pre-Code cases, we have employed a reasonable formula for determination of lost-crop value. Since the Code does not specify a different measure, we hold that our prior formula supplements the Code and may be used in submitting the issue of consequential damages for lost crops. We also agree with seller's contention that the trial court failed properly to instruct the jury on the measure of damages from a breached warranty of merchantability and that the evidence was insufficient upon which to base a verdict for such damages. The jury was instructed that if it found the seller had violated either the express or implied warranty of merchantability, the verdict should be for the buyer but may not exceed $10,500. The proper measure of damages is found in § 2-714(2) and the charge given should have identified it as the difference  at the time and place of acceptance  between the actual value of the combine accepted and that which it would have had if it had been as warranted. [17] The only evidence available to the jury was the combine's actual purchase price of $10,500 in February 1974, a statement from the dealer that he could have sold it to someone else for $5,000 more and buyer's testimony of the combine's negative value in December 1974 when it remained inoperable. The first figure may be relevant as to the warranted value at the time of acceptance, but the evidence as a whole is insufficient for the jury to apply the difference-in-value formula of damages. [18]