Court Opinion

ID: 9639623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:41:54.859762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:48.257928
License: Public Domain

PARKER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The contract sued on is not one for the unconditional sale and delivery of a definite number of automobiles. It is one granting to the local dealer a “concession” to deal in automobiles, automobile parts, etc., manufactured by defendant, and providing for an allotment of cars annually, the delivery of which, however, is to he dependent upon a number of contingencies. It provides, among other things, that any cancellation or termination of the contract shall operate as a cancellation of all orders for automobiles, parts, etc., which shall not have been shipped prior to receipt of notice of cancellation. The contract specifies no definite time during which it is to continue and be binding upon the parties; and there is nothing in it to prevent cancellation by the seller at any time, except the provision that seller shall not cancel except upon 60 days’ notice, with the proviso, however, that, in the event the dealer shall not represent the seller exclusively, the latter may cancel upon 10 days’ notice.
The seller canceled the contract, giving-notice of cancellation under this 10-day proviso, but the verdict of the jury amounts to a finding that there was no violation of the provision for exclusive representation which would justify this 10-day notice. The action *446of the seller, therefore, in canceling the contract without giving the 60 days’ notice amounted to a breach of the provision of the contract requiring such notice. It did not, however, entitle the dealer to recover as damages the anticipated profit on the entire year’s allotment of cars, but merely the profit on those to which he would have been entitled if the provision as to 60 days notice had been observed. I think that for this reason there was error in the instruction on the measure of damages.