Court Opinion

ID: 8843367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 16:49:07.96382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:16.357188
License: Public Domain

Coxe, District Judge.
By the terms of the agreements between the parties the complainant became the exclusive agent of the defendant, for the sale of the electrical machinery and apparatus manufactured and controlled by the defendant, within certain limited territory. The compensation which the complainant was to receive for its services as agent was a discount of, at least, 20 per cent, upon the selling price of the machinery and apparatus sold by it. If the defendant sold in this territory it was to pay a commission, at the same rate, to the complainant. It is plain, therefore, that if the contracts had been faithfully performed the complainant could have received nothing, except *7this discount and commission upon machinery and apparatus sold in the specified territory. The stipulation entered into between the attorneys recognizes the loss of this percentage as the true rule for the assessment of the complainant’s damages. It is the true rule. On the -2d of June, 1890, the defendant granted an exclusive license, under various patents for improvements in secondary batteries, to the Consolidated Electric Storage Company. The license covered the entire United States and the territories thereof. The consideration for this license was $65,-000 in cash and certain annual royalties. The proof shows that the $65,000 was paid pursuant to the terms of the agreement. There is no proof of other payments. The complainant insists that it is entitled to recover the entire sum of $65,000 as damages.
I am of the opinion that the master was correct in disallowing this claim. There were no facts before him from which he could formulate a correct rule of damages. There was no proof of the sale by the defendant or the storage company of a single secondary battery in the complainant’s territory. There was no proof that the storage company had done any act in hostility to the complainant’s interests, or that complainant had lost a sale because of the lítense. So far as this evidence goes there was a mere transfer of rights under certain letters-patent. The complainant derived no pecuniary benefit from these patents while the defendant controlled them, and nothing has yet been shown which entitles the complainant to remuneration now. Certainly the mere transfer of the patents from one corporation to another does not confer that right. Even assuming that the complainant is entitled to some part of the $65,000, there is nothing to show what part. That sum was paid for a license extending throughout the entire country. There is nothing to show what the rights so transferred, if confined to the complainant’s territory, would be worth. The situation appears to be one where the language of the supreme court in Machinery Co. v. Dolph, 188 U. S. 617, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 412, seems applicable:
“On breach of such a contract, the principal matter in respect to which provision was made is the one to be mainly regarded. If subordinate provisions are clear and definite, and damages for disregard thereof determinable by plain and obvious rules, of course such damages may be recovered; but if because they are subordinate the provisions in respect thereto are indefinite, then the court may not, with the idea of preventing injustice, attempt to substitute equivalents therefor. The main purpose of tho contract must be regarded and its specific provisions in connection therewith enforced, and proper damages given for the breach thereof. A lack of certainty as to terms of contract obligations of either party, or measure of damages for breach, is simply the misfortune of him who seeks to recover in case of a breach thereof. ”
The exception is overruled and the report of the master is confirmed.