Opinion ID: 1854562
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Where there is a breach of warranty by the seller, the buyer may, at his election:

Text: b. Accept or keep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty.    6. The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach of warranty. 7. In the case of breach of warranty of quality, such loss, in the absence of special circumstances showing proximate damage of a greater amount, is the difference between the value of the goods ae the time of delivery to the buyer and the value they would have had if they had answered to the warranty. The measure of damages for breach of warranty is ordinarily the difference between value of the goods as they were and value as they would have been had they answered to the warranty. Drager v. Carlson Hybrid Corn Co., Inc., 244 Iowa 78, 86-87, 56 N.W.2d 18. As best we can determine, that is the basis upon which plaintiffs attempted to establish their damage. Stated otherwise plaintiffs' approach indicates their measure of damage would be the difference between value of the dry cleaner if it had been as warranted and its actual value. This means difference in fair and reasonable value, not difference in value to some one person or for any one use. It is not limited to usage for dry cleaning purposes alone or by the fact the machine did not work satisfactorily. In support hereof see Boeing Airplane Company v. O'Malley, (8 Cir.), 329 F.2d 585, 598; Turner v. Kunde, 256 Iowa 835, 842-843, 128 N.W.2d 196; Kelly v. Emary, 242 Iowa 683, 690, 45 N.W.2d 866; Chariton P. & H. Co. v. Lester, 202 Iowa 475, 477, 210 N.W. 584; Mendenhall v. Kallem, 191 Iowa 987, 991, 183 N.W. 422; 77 C.J.S. Sales § 376, page 1321; 46 Am.Jur., Sales, section 738, page 863; and Williston on Sales, Revised Ed., section 613. The burden was on plaintiffs to prove damages, if any, by good and competent evidence. This they failed to do. It follows the trial court erred in awarding $7,506.46 to plaintiffs. IX. At the close of plaintiffs' testimony defendant Speed Queen moved for directed verdict on various grounds, including absence of proper and timely notice of any breach of warranty. It was renewed after presentation of testimony by defendant Speed Queen and at close of all the evidence. These motions were successively overruled by the trial court. For reasons above stated this was error requiring a reversal as to defendant Speed Queen.