Opinion ID: 265276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The CCC's Counterclaims.

Text: 19 The counterclaims in this action are asserted against only two of the plaintiffs, Asheville and Schwab. They are based on the conceded breach of section 2.b. (2)(a) of the barter contracts, which reads: 20 'LIMITATIONS ON GRADES, QUALITIES AND EXCHANGE VALUE OF MICA ACCEPTABLE. 21 '(a) The block mica and film mica acceptable under the terms of this contract shall be of such grades and qualities as will have an average exchange value as provided in (1) above of not less than $4.00 per pound.'Although obligated to deliver block and film mica of an average exchange value of no less than $4.00 per pound, Asheville in fact delivered mica having an average exchange value of only $3.48 per pound, and Schwab delivered mica having an average exchange value of only $3.34 per pound, at the prices fixed in the contracts. This deficiency was made up by CCC's drawing on the letters of credit which plaintiffs furnished them, in the amounts of $11,920.52 and $88,767.47 respectively. 3 The counterclaims now being asserted derive, however, from the fact that the market price of mica increased between the date of the contracts and the date of the last deliveries. The CCC claims that the average increase in market prices up to the last date of delivery was 20.564 percent-- in other words that it was entitled to mica having an average value of about $4.82 per pound. In fact the mica delivered had an average market value of only about $3.70 per pound in the case of Asheville and $3.82 per pound in the case of Schwab. The claims now asserted are the differences between the increment to which CCC claims it was entitled, and the actual increment in value of the mica which was delivered. In tabular form, the computations are as follows: 22 A B C D E F Asheville 92,292.20 111,271.17 80,371.68 90,555.59 11,920.52 8,795.05 Schwab 538,488.00 649,222.67 449,720.54 513,782.89 88,767.47 46,672.32 Legend A -- Value of deliveries if they had an average exchange value of $ 4.00 per pound. B -- Value of mica delivered if it had an average exchange value of $4.00 per pound + 20.564% (representing claimed market value of mica to which CCC was entitled on 12/31/58). C -- Value of actual deliveries at prices prescribed in contract. D -- Market value of actual deliveries on 12/31/58. E -- Amount paid under letters of credit (column A minus column C). F -- Amount now claimed (column B minus the sum of columns D and E). 23 Our review of this phase of the case is limited by the fact that the parties agree that, if plaintiffs Asheville and Schwab prevail on their claims, the computation of the CCC's counterclaims will be different. Since we have remanded the case for further findings in the light of all the relevant evidence on this issue, it is obvious that we can make no final disposition of the counterclaims at this time. In order to expedite the consideration of this case at the lower court level, and by the parties in the event of any stipulation as to damages, we will say that we have considered the various defenses raised by the plaintiffs to the counterclaims as they now stand and find all but one of them without merit. Thus, we think the notice of breach given by CCC was timely, that the increase of 20.564% In average prices per pound used as the basis of the computation was reasonable under the evidence, and that CCC did not fail in any obligation it had to minimize damages. The one area where we think plaintiffs have demonstrated error in this aspect of the judgment is that the District Court viewed the breach of section 2.b. (2)(a) on the basis of all the shipments of the two plaintiffs. In fact, a great many of these shipments had an average exchange value of $4.00 per pound-- specifically 16,667.60 pounds in the case of Asheville, and 90,855.52 pounds in the case of Schwab. As to these shipments, there was certainly no breach, and we do not believe CCC sustained any loss on them. Under its theory, the CCC would obtain damages in respect to shipments which satisfied the contract's requirements. With regard to the remaining poundage, 6,405 for Asheville, and 43,766.48 for Schwab, we would follow the CCC's method of computing damage, which results in a net counterclaim of $2,451.34 against Asheville and $18,254.14 against Schwab. These were the sums originally claimed by CCC in the pretrial order, which was, however, later amended to the higher figures claimed. 24 Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.