Court Opinion

ID: 9573592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:57:04.746604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:58.448090
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code the buyer’s measure of damages for repudiation or nondelivery by the seller is the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price, or the difference between the market price and the contract price when the buyer learned of the breach, together with incidental and consequential damages, but less expenses saved. §§ 2-712, 2-713, U.C.C. In other words the buyer’s damages are the loss of the bargain plus consequential damages, if any. Section 2-715, U.C.C., merely defines incidental and consequential damages.
To recover damages for the loss of the bargain it was incumbent upon the defendant to prove the cost of cover or the market price at the place of tender at the time when the buyer learned of the breach. § 2-713(2), U.C.C. The majority opinion concedes that the defendant buyer did neither.
The consequential damages which the defendant sought to recover was the profit the buyer would have made by resale in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas. A higher degree of proof is required to recover lost profits than is required for general damages. See K & R, Inc. v. Crete Storage Corp., 194 Neb. 138, 231 N. W. 2d 110. Even if it is assumed the defendant sustained consequential damages that could not have been prevented by purchase of other grain, the evidence here did not satisfy the requirements for proof of lost profits.
In my opinion the finding of the trial court that the defendant did not introduce sufficient data to enable the jury to find the amount of damages with reasonable certainty was correct. I would remand the cause for a new trial on the counterclaim on the issue of damages.