Court Opinion

ID: 9799758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 07:34:35.758194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:30:54.717276
License: Public Domain

THOMAS M. REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The court holds as a matter of law that the no-refund provision of the contract is an invalid penalty, without consideration by the district court and although unlikely prospects for resale of measured logs could justify that provision. Only a claim of unjust enrichment was before that court, submerged under the buyer’s breach of contract claim. And this court orders the district court to award the seller his “damages” without saying anything about his profit for the performance of the contract the buyer breached. Then the court has issued a judgment saying the summary judgment for the seller is affirmed at the same time it says the seller loses the benefit of the contract. The issues now framed and resolved have not been developed and considered in the district court. Our judgment should be to vacate the judgment being appealed and to remand the case for that purpose.