Court Opinion

ID: 9779236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:41:06.024742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:24.029908
License: Public Domain

OPINION
BISSETT, Justice.
This is a breach of contract case. Laredo Hides Company, Inc., the buyer, sued H & H Meat Products Company, Inc., the seller, to recover damages for breach of a *214written contract for the sale of cattle hides. Trial was to the court without a jury. A take nothing judgment in favor of defendant was rendered. Plaintiff has appealed.
The controlling facts of the case are undisputed. H & H Meat Products Company, Inc. (H & H) is a meat processing and packing corporation, located in Mercedes, Texas. It sells cattle hides as a by-product of its business. Laredo Hides Company, Inc. (Laredo Hides) is a corporation, located in Laredo, Texas. It purchases cattle hides from various meat packers in the United States and ships them to tanneries in Mexico.
A written contract dated February 29, 1972, was executed whereby Laredo Hides agreed to by H & H’s entire cattle hide production during the period March through December, 1972. Among other provisions, the contract provided:
“Terms: Cash upon delivery — deliveries to be made at least twice a month.”
The agreement was signed on behalf of Laredo Hides by Camilio Prada (Prada), its president, and on behalf of H & H by Liborio Hinojosa (Hinojosa), its vice president and general manager.
On March 3, 1972, the first delivery of hides was made under the contract. On that occasion, as had been the practice regarding deliveries under prior contracts between the parties, the hides were picked up at H & H’s plant in Mercedes by a truck which was owned by Lozano Transfer Company, whose office is located in Laredo. The trucking company was Laredo Hides’ agent for payment and receipt of deliveries of hides from H & H. At the time of delivery of the hides on that day, the truck driver delivered a Laredo Hides check to H & H in payment for the shipment. The check was accepted by H & H, the hides were loaded, and the truck returned to Laredo.
On Friday, March 17, 1972, Laredo Hides, having been notified that the next load of hides was ready for delivery, issued its check for $9,000.00, payable to the order of H & H, and delivered the same to Lozano Transfer Company so that the truck driver could take it with him and give it to H & H the next day, when he picked up the hides. On Saturday morning, March 18th, Esteban Lozano (Loza-no), the owner of Lozano Transfer Company, upon arrival at the office, discovered that the truck driver (who had already left for H & H’s plant) had forgotten the check. Lozano then telephoned H & H, talked to Hinojosa, and told him what had happened. Lozano asked Hinojosa: “What do you want me to do?” Hinojosa answered: “Don’t worry about it; just mail it.” According to Hinojosa, that was the extent of their conversation. Lozano, however, testified that during the conversation he told Hinojosa that he could send the check that day (March 18, 1972) to Mercedes because “one of my boys was going to Brownsville”, but that Hinojosa advised him that such was not necessary and “told me to send it by mail”.
Lozano further testified that on the day in question, March 18, 1972, at about 10:00 A.M., which was after he had talked with Hinojosa, he gave the order to mail the check to H & H. Heriberto Oribe, Loza-no’s clerk, testified that the envelope to H & H was given to him mid-morning on March 18th and that he deposited it in a mailbox in the vicinity of the post office, Laredo, that morning.
The driver of the truck, shortly after arriving at H & H’s plant in Mercedes, told Hinojosa that he did not have the check. Hinojosa told him that he had talked with Lozano and that he (the driver) should “load up”. The truck was, accordingly, loaded with the hides, and was driven back to Laredo, where its cargo was delivered to Laredo Hides.
There were no communications between anyone representing Laredo Hides and anyone representing H & H on either Sunday, March 19th or Monday, March 20th. *215On Tuesday morning, March 21st, the check had not been placed in H & H’s post office box in Mercedes. Hinojosa then telephoned Prada at Laredo. The time of this telephone call is disputed. Hinojosa testified that he placed the call between 10:30 and 11:30 in the morning. Prada testified that he received the call after 1:00 p. m. Hinojosa told Prada that the check had not arrived at the post office in Mercedes. Prada told Hinojosa that the check had been mailed. Hinojosa replied:
“ . . .1 don’t believe you. I am going to give you one chance — get me the money by four-thirty, in my possession, or I won’t sell you another hide”.
That was the extent of that conversation.
Miss Christina Valdez, Prada’s secretary and office manager of Laredo Hides, telephoned Hinojosa on Tuesday, March 21st. Hinojosa, summed up the gist of this conversation in the following words:
“She kept telling me the check had been sent, and it was in the post office, and I said: ‘look, I don’t believe you, and I don’t want to talk to you. But one thing, if you don’t have my money to me by four-thirty, I won’t sell you another hide’. She said: ‘if you don’t sell the hides to us, I am going to sue you’. And I said: ‘Well, get at it’. And that was the end of it”.
Hinojosa further admitted that Miss Valdez telephoned him twice more on that Tuesday afternoon and that Prada telephoned him once more, but he refused to talk to either of them.
The ultimatum delivered by Hinojosa on Tuesday, March 21st touched off a flurry of activity in Laredo. Prada went to a bank in Laredo and between the hours of 2:00 p. m. and 3:00 p. m., arranged to transfer $9,000.00 directly to H & H’s account in the Mid-Valley State Bank in Weslaco. After the transfer was arranged, two telegrams were sent to Hino-josa, one by the Laredo Bank, the other by Laredo Hides. Both informed him of the transfer of the funds and that payment on the check had been stopped. These telegrams were received by Hinojosa about 5:00 p. m., March 21st.
A. R. Vela, a vice-president of the Laredo Bank, testified that the transfer had to be arranged through correspondent banks in San Antonio. He telephoned Edward W. Rutledge of the National Bank of Commerce in San Antonio between 3:00 and 4:00 p. m. on March 21st. The National Bank of Commerce was not a correspondent bank of Mid-Valley State Bank. Upon receiving the call from Vela, Rutledge telephone Don Gentry, a vice president of the Mid-Valley State Bank, and asked for instructions. This call was made before 4:00 p. m. on March 21st. Gentry advised Rutledge that the Frost National Bank of San Antonio was their correspondent bank and the money should be paid to that bank for the account of Mid-Valley State Bank. This had to be done by a federal reserve draft, and as the National Bank of Commerce, the Frost National Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank each closed at 3:00 p. m., the actual transfer of the money could not be accomplished until the next day. Accordingly, on March 22nd, the $9,000.00 was paid by federal reserve draft to the Frost National Bank for the account of the Mid-Valley State Bank.
The check was received through the mail by H & H on the morning of Wednesday, March 22nd. Hinojosa then telephoned the Mid-Valley State Bank, inquired about the bank transfer, and was told that such a credit for the account of H & H had not arrived at the bank. He called the bank again Wednesday afternoon and was again advised that the credit had not arrived.
On Thursday morning, March 23rd, a bookkeeper at the Mid-Valley State Bank called Hinojosa and told him that the credit had arrived. The next day, Friday, March 24th, Hinojosa mailed the $9,000.00 check back to Laredo Hides, and refunded $1,237.02 to Laredo Hides, since the *216$9,000.00 received by H & H by way of bank transfer amounted to more than the amount of money due on the hides that were delivered on March 18th.
Hinojosa treated the failure to make payment before 4:30 p. m. on March 21, 1972, as a breach of the agreement which gave H & H a right to cancel the contract. On March 30, 1972, Prada called Hinojosa and asked if a shipment of hides would be ready on the following Saturday, April 1, 1972. Hinojosa unequivocally told him that he was not going to sell him anymore hides, and further advised that it was useless for him to send a truck for the hides, since at 4:30 p. m., Tuesday, March 21st, he had made up his mind to terminate the contract.
Laredo Hides, on March 3, 1972, had contracted with a Mexican tannery for the sale of all the hides which it expected to purchase from H & H under the February 29, 1972, contract. Following the cancellation by H & H of the contract, Laredo Hides, in order to meet the requirements of its contract with the tannery, was forced to purchase hides on the open market in substitution for the hides which were to have been delivered to it under the contract with H & H.
H & H’s total production during the months April through December, 1972, was 17,218 hides. Under the contract with H & H, the price was $9.75 per hide for bull, steer and heifer hides, and $9.75 per hide for cow hides if the shipment was under 5% cow hides. In the event the shipment was more than 5% cow hides, the price on the excess of cow hides over 5% was reduced to $7.50 per cow hide. The market price for hides steadily increased following the execution of the contract in question. By December 31, 1972, the average cost of bull hides was about $33.00 each and the average cost of cow, heifer and steer hides was about $22.00 each. The total additional cost to Laredo Hides of purchasing substitute hides from other suppliers was $142,254.48. The additional costs (transportation and handling charges) to Laredo Hides which resulted because of the purchases from third parties amounted to $3,448.95.
The trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings are, in substance, as follows: 1) time was of the essence of the written contract; 2) on March 18, 1972, plaintiff breached the contract by failure to make payment upon delivery of the hides; 3) defendant (after March 18, 1972) orally agreed with plaintiff to accept payment if the money was in defendant’s possession by 4:30 p. m. on March 21, 1972, but if plaintiff did not make such payment within the time limited therefor, that no further hides would be sold to plaintiff under the contract; and, 4) payment was not received until the inter-bank transfer deposit on March 23, 1972. Based on these findings, the court concluded: “. . . that the cancellation by defendant of its contract with plaintiff, upon plaintiffs original breach of such contract and subsequent failure to make such payment to defendant within the time as extended, was legally justified, and that plaintiff is not entitled to recover of defendant its money damages thereafter allegedly accruing.”
Ordinarily, time is not of the essence of a contract, and failure to perform on the exact date agreed upon is not such a breach that justifies a cancellation. Caprito v. Grisham-Hunter Corporation, et al., 128 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Civ.App. — Eastland 1939, writ dism’d judg. corr.); Chapman v. Levy & Levy, 193 S.W. 1101 (Tex.Civ. App. — Dallas 1917, n. w. h.); 13 Tex.Jur. 2d, Contracts, § 288; 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 504(1). In order to make time of the essence of a contract, it must so provide by express stipulation, or there must be something in the nature of the subject matter, or connected with the purpose, of the contract and the circumstances surrounding it which makes it apparent that the parties intended that the contract be performed at or within the time specified. Langley v. *217Norris, 167 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Civ.App.— Eastland 1942), affirmed in 141 Tex. 405, 173 S.W.2d 454 (1943) ; McKnight v. Renfro, 371 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1963, writ ref’d, n. r. e.). Any intention to make time of the essence in the performance of a contract must be clearly manifested from a consideration of the contract as a whole, and when that intention is not made clear by the language in the contract itself, the surrounding circumstances may be taken into consideration in determining that question. Williams v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Co., 128 Tex. 146, 95 S.W.2d 1292 (1936); Foster v. L. M. S. Development Co., 346 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1961, writ ref’d n. r. e.) ; English v. Underwood, 5 S.W.2d 1033 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1928, writ dism’d) ; Bush v. W. M. Johnson Gin Co., 138 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Civ.App. — Amarillo 1940, n. w. h.) ; Investors’ Utility Corporation v. Challacombe, 39 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1931, n. w. h.); Nations v. Williams, 203 S.W. 1176 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1918, n. w. h.).
In 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 504(1), at page 794, the statement is made:
“As a general rule, a stipulation for the payment of money at a particular time will not be regarded as an essential part of the agreement, in the sense that a breach thereof wholly destroys the contract, where the default admits of compensation; . . . ”
In essence, the same rule is noted in 67 Am.Jur.2d, Sales, § 403, at page 562, as follows:
“ . . . time of payment was not of the essence of a contract for sale of goods on a specified day where there was nothing to show that the seller would suffer any loss, injury, or inconvenience by the delay which occurred, or that the goods had depreciated in value.

It is stated in 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 333, at page 772:
“ . . . Ordinarily, the mere designation of a particular date upon which a thing is to be done does not make that date the essence of the contract
Those rules, so announced, apply to the case at bar. See Sanborn v. Murphy, 86 Tex. 437, 25 S.W. 610 (1894); Bigham & McCall v. Carr, 21 Tex. 142 (1858).
The rule is well established that in an installment contract for the sale of goods, a stipulation of time of payment, in the absence of an express or necessarily implied condition thereto that time of payment upon delivery will be of the essence, is not so vital that a delay in payment would justify the seller’s refusal to deliver the succeeding shipments of the goods, unless the delay was of such importance as to cause material injury to the seller, or fairly express the buyer’s intention to no longer be bound by the remaining executory agreement. Latham v. Butler, 17 S.W.2d 1083 (Tex.Civ.App.' — Galveston 1929, writ ref’d); Grove v. Keeling, 176 S.W. 822 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1915, writ ref’d); Vulcan Trading Corporation v. Kokomo Steel & W. Co., 268 F. 913 (7th Cir. 1920); Plotnick v. Pennsylvania Smelting & Refining Co., 194 F.2d 859 (3rd Cir. 1952); Grand Forks Lumber Co. v. McClure Logging Co., 103 Minn. 471, 115 N.W. 406; Welsh v. Michigan Maple Co., 161 Mich. 16, 125 N.W. 692 (1907); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lumber Co., 186 N.Y. 89, 78 Ñ.E. 701 (1906); Helgar Corp. v. Warner’s Features, Inc., 222 N.Y. 449, 119 N.E. 113 (1918).
Provisions in a contract which specify or limit the time of performance, even where time is of the essence of the contract, may be waived. Puckett v. Hoover, 146 Tex. 1, 202 S.W.2d 209 (1947). Further, such a waiver may be express or implied. Kennedy v. McMullen, 39 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1931, writ ref’d); 13 Tex.Jur.2d, Contracts, §§ 294-295, pp. 538-541. An extension of time for *218payment constitutes an express waiver of the right to declare a forfeiture for failure to make payment at the time prescribed in the contract. Young v. Tian, 150 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1941, writ dism’d); Shields v. Dunlap, 174 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1943, n. w. h.).
A waiver of the time of performance of a contract will result from any act that induces the opposite party to believe that exact performance within the time designated in the contract will not be insisted upon. T. G. Shaw Oil Corporation v. Parker, 61 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Civ.App.— Forth Worth 1933, n. w. h.) ; Bastrop & Austin Bayou Rice Growers' Ass'n v. Cochran, 138 S.W. 1188 (Tex.Civ.App.— Galveston 1911, n. w. h.).
It is settled law in this State that where the creditor expressly directs that the money owed him be mailed to him, payment of such debt is made when a letter containing the agreed remittance for the proper amount, properly addressed and with postage prepaid, is deposited in the mail. This rule was succinctly stated in Fant v. Miller, 218 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.Civ. App.—Texarkana 1949, writ ref’d) as follows :
“. . . In such a case, the posting of a letter inclosing the remittance as directed constitutes payment, although the letter is lost, and a delay of the remittance in the mail will not result in a forfeiture or loss of the rights through non-payment.”
This Court followed the above announced rule in Parkview General Hospital, Inc. v. Ashmore, 462 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Civ.App.— Corpus Christi 1970, writ ref’d, n. r. e.). See also Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Wilson, 246 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1957).
The parties had done business with each other since the middle 1960’s. Prior to 1967, they did business under oral agreements, but in that year they reduced their agreements to writing. Several of those written contracts were introduced in evidence. All of the prior written agreements, as well as the contract dated February 29, 1972, upon which this suit is predicated, provided in identical language that payment for the hides shall be “cash upon delivery”. Payment was always by personal check and H & H never insisted upon being paid in “cash”. In the instant case, payment by check was fully authorized.
There is no stipulation in the contract sued upon that time is of the essence with respect to payment for the hides at time of delivery. There is no provision therein for a forfeiture pr cancellation by H & H in the event payment is not made upon delivery. The contract, when examined in its entirety, furnishes no clue that actual payment for the hides upon delivery was an essential condition of its performance. The language of the contract does not manifest an intention that the parties desired time of payment to be vital, or that a late payment would be a ground for cancellation. There is no showing that H & H would suffer any loss, injury, or even inconvenience by the delay in payment which resulted from the truck driver’s forgetfulness. There is nothing in the nature or subject matter of the contract that suggests that time is or should be of the essence. There is no indication whatever that Laredo Hides, on March 18, 1972, or at any time thereafter, intended to abandon the contract.
The contract sued on is unambiguous, and parol evidence is not admissible to explain, vary, modify or change its terms. Even if we consider the oral evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, that evidence does not relate to late payment as being a ground for termination of the contract. The only evidence (which was admitted over Laredo Hides’ objection) with respect to any right to forfeit the contract stems from portions of Hino-josa’s testimony. He testified that on sev*219eral occasions prior to February 29, 1972, Laredo Hides had given H & H checks that were turned down by the bank because of “insufficient funds”. All of such checks were made good. In connection with that subject, which was a circumstance surrounding the execution of the contract, Hinojosa said:
“I told him (Prada) it was up to him to make sure I didn’t get an insufficient check, because the day I got an insufficient check, that day it (the contract) would be terminated.”
He admitted that after that statement was made, the parties entered into the subject contract. There is no evidence that the check which was mailed to H & H would have been dishonored upon presentation to the bank because of “insufficient funds”. The oral statement relating to “an insufficient check” does not form any basis that will support a finding that time was of the essence because of the circumstances surrounding the contract.
An examination of Hinojosa’s testimony clearly reveals that he did not consider that actual payment for the hides at the time of delivery was of the essence of the agreement. He did not believe that he had a right to terminate the contract on March 18, 1972, when he was advised that the truck driver had forgotten to bring the check with him. The fact that he granted permission for payment after the hides were delivered conclusively shows that time of payment was not of the essence of the contract. The only reason for the unilateral termination of the contract is the failure of Laredo Hides to actually put H & H in possession of the money for the March 18th shipment by 4:30 p.m., March 21, 1972. Such is clearly established by the answers of Hinojosa to the following questions :
“Q. Well, you didn’t believe Cristina Tuesday afternoon when she said it was in the mail. Suppose there had been some way to prove to you then that it was in the mail, and it was delivered the next day, that would have made everything okay, wouldn’t it ?
A No. Tuesday morning when I called Prada, I forgot everything that I had told Lozano and everybody, and I said, Prada, get my money to me by four-thirty, or I will never sell you another hide.
Q You said you forgot what you told Lozano — you didn’t remember it?
A I didn’t care what I said before.
Q You didn’t care what you told Loz-ano, you wanted a new deal ?
A I suppose, exactly.”
The envelope which is evidence, shows that it was mailed “airmail, special delivery”. The postmark which was stamped thereon at Laredo is illegible with regard to any date.
The record before us will neither allow time to be made the essence of the contract by implication, nor permit an oral extrinsic showing that such was the intention of the parties to the written contract, the terms of which are expressed in clear, explicit and unequivocal language. Time of payment was not of the essence under the contract sued on by Laredo Hides.
There are two reasons why the finding that Laredo Hides breached the contract on March 18, 1972, when it failed to make payment upon delivery of the hides cannot be sustained. First, payment was made on March 18, 1972, when the check was mailed to H & H pursuant to instructions by Hinojosa. Second, the actual payment of cash upon delivery of the hides was waived.
Payment by mail was expressly authorized by Hinojosa. The evidence conclusively shows that the envelope containing the check was properly addressed to H & H, had affixed thereto the correct amount of postage, was deposited in a *220mailbox at or near the post office in Laredo at about 10:00 a.m. on March 18, 1972, and was received by H & H in the mail on the morning; of March 22, 1972. There is nothing in the record that required Laredo Hides to actually mail the check on Saturday, March 18, 1972. Hinojosa did not specify any time when the check was to be mailed. A reasonable time was all that was required. Even if the check had not been mailed until March 20, 1972, as H & H argues was the case, this would have been a reasonable time under the circumstances. The delay, if any, did not give H & H a right to terminate the contract because of late payment.
Even if it be assumed that Laredo Hides breached the contract because the check was not actually delivered to H &.H until the morning of March 22, 1972, H & H was not justified in cancel-ling the contract. It is well settled that where one party to a contract leads the other to reasonably believe that strict compliance with the contract is not required, the contract cannot be cancelled for late performance without first notifying the other party that strict compliance with its terms will be insisted upon in the future, and the giving of a reasonable time within which to cure the late performance. Specifically, it has been held that where a creditor had allowed late payments in the past, he could not summarily and unilaterally forfeit the contract without giving the debtor notice of his intention to require strict compliance with the times for payment, and a reasonable time within which to make payments which were in default at the time of giving the notice. Hoover v. General Crude Oil Co., 147 Tex. 89, 212 S.W.2d 140 (1948); A. L. Carter Lumber Co. v. Saide, 140 Tex. 523, 168 S. W.2d 629 (1943); Lynch Davidson & Co. v. Hudson, 15 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Civ.App. —Texarkana 1929, writ ref'd) ; Waller v. Nethery, 188 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.Civ.App. —Dallas 1945, writ ref’d w. o. m.); Hill v. James, 7 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Civ.App. — East-land 1928, n. w. h.).
In view of the telephone conversation between Lozano and Hinojosa on March 18, 1972, Laredo Hides could reasonably believe that it had done all that H & H required in order to comply with the payment provision of the contract. The sudden unilateral demand that was made by H & H on Tuesday, March 21st, allowed Laredo Hides only a few hours to obtain $9,000.00 and to deliver the same to H & H in Mercedes, a town about 165 miles from Laredo. The demand for receipt of payment did not allow Laredo Hides a reasonable time within which to place H & H in receipt of the money within the time limited therefor. For that reason, if for no other, H & H was not legally justified in cancelling the contract simply because it did not actually receive the money by 4:30 p.m. on that fateful Tuesday. Furthermore, there was no new consideration moving from H & H that supported the demand. Stone v. Morrison & Powers, 298 S.W. 538 (Tex.Comm’n.App., 1927, opinion approved) ; Signs v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 340 S.W.2d 67, 73 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1960, n. w. h.); 13 Tex.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 269.
 An anticipatory breach of the entire contract exists if one party thereto, either before the time for performance, or after partial but before full performance, in positive and unconditional terms, refuses to perform further thereunder. Western Oil Sales Corporation v. Bliss & Wetherbee, 299 S.W. 637 (Tex.Comm’n.App., 1927); Troy Const. Co. v. North Carolina Nat. Gas Corp., 316 S.W.2d 957 (Tex.Civ. App. —Waco, 1958, writ ref’d, n. r. e.). Where one of the parties repudiates the contract and absolutely refuses to perform the duties and obligations required of him, the other party need not go through the useless act of tendering performance. Texas Business and Commerce Code, § 2.610, V.T.C.A.; The Maccabees v. Marshall, 11 S.W.2d 523 (Tex.Civ.App.— Austin 1928), aff’d 27 S.W.2d 535 (1930); Young v. Watson, 140 S.W. 840 (Tex. Civ.App. — Galveston 1911, writ ref’d). Un*221der the record before us, H & H repudiated the contract wtih Laredo Hides on March 30, 1972. That repudiation relieved Laredo Hides of itself tendering performance during the remaining months covered by the contract. It would have been useless and futile for Laredo Hides to have made such a tender twice in each of the months remaining.
Since this case must be reversed, we now confront the issue of damages. The guidelines for determining a buyer’s remedies in a case where there is a breach of a contract for the sale of goods by a seller are found in Chapter 2 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.1 Among other remedies afforded by the Code, when there is a repudiation of the contract by the seller or a failure to make delivery of the goods under contract, the buyer may cover under § 2.711. He may have damages under § 2.-712 “by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller”, and “may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages” provided by the chapter; or, he may, under § 2.713, have damages measured by “the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages” provided by the chapter.
Laredo Hides instituted suit in May, 1972, and filed its amended petition (its trial pleading) on October 24, 1972, when performance was still due by H & H under the contract. It prayed for specific performance, or in the alternative “. . . damages at least in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), the same being the damages proximately caused by defendant’s breach of the contract . . . ” There was never a trial amendment of this petition. There were no exceptions by H & H to Laredo Hides’ pleadings. Trial commenced on February 28, 1973 was recessed on March 2, 1973, resumed on May 15, 1973, and ended May 16, 1973. Judgment was signed and rendered on August 6, 1973.
Laredo Hides offered uncontroverted evidence of the hide production of H & H from April to December, 1972. It also established the price for the same number of hides which it was forced to buy elsewhere. There was testimony that purchases had to be made periodically throughout 1972 since Laredo Hides had no storage facilities, and the hides would decompose if allowed to age. Furthermore, White, a C. P.A., testified as to statistical summaries which he made showing the cost of buying substitute hides. These summaries were made from invoices which are also in evidence. All of this evidence was admitted without objection. Clearly, Laredo Hides elected to pursue the remedy provided by § 2.712 of the Code, and by its pleadings and evidence brought itself within the purview of the “cover” provisions contained therein.
It is not necessary under § 2.712 that the buyer establish market price. Duesenberg and King, Sales and Bulk Transfers under the U.C.C. § 14.04 Matthew Bender (1974). Where the buyer complies with the requirements of § 2.712, his purchase is presumed proper and the burden of proof is on the seller to show that “cover” was not properly obtained. Spies, Sales, Performance and Remedies, 44 Tex.L.Rev. 629, 638 (1966). There was no evidence offered by H & H to negate this presumption or to “establish expenses saved in consequence of the seller’s breach”, as permitted by § 2.712.
The difference between the cover price and the contract price is shown to be $134,252.82 for steer hides and $8,001.66 for bull hides, or a total of $142,254.48. In addition, Laredo Hides offered evidence of *222increased transportation costs of $1,435.77, and increased handling charges of $2,013.-18. These are clearly recoverable as incidental damages where the buyer elects to “cover”. §§ 2.715(a); 2.712(b).
Laredo Hides, in addition to its prayer for $100,000.00, as damages, also prayed “for costs of suit and any and all other relief, both at law and in equity, to which plaintiff may be entitled”. As already noted, H & H did not except to Laredo Hides’ petition. We hold that the petition, in the absence of any special exception, will support recovery to the full extent that the undisputed facts warrant. Rules 90, 91, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. State, 162 S.W.2d 119, 137 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1942, writ ref’d).
The rule in Texas is that prejudgment interest will be allowed as damages when the principal damages are determinable and established at a definite time, either by rules of evidence or known standards of value. When such is the case, interest is recoverable from the date of the injury. Texas Power & Light Co. v. Doering Hotel Co., 147 S.W.2d 897, 906 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1941), affirmed 139 Tex. 351, 162 S.W.2d 938 (1942); Reed v. Fulton, 384 S.W.2d 173, 179 (Tex.Civ.App. —Corpus Christi, 1964 writ ref’d n. r. e.) ; Hexter v. Powell, 475 S.W.2d 857, 864 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1971, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Such interest (as damages) may only be recovered where there is either a specific claim for the interest, or a prayer for general relief and a claim for damages in such a sum as to include interest as well as specific damages. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Collins, 61 S.W.2d 84, 90 (Tex. Comm’n.App.1933); City of Houston v. Anchor-Hocking Glass Corp., 467 S.W.2d 677, 680 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston 1st Dist. 1971, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Pereira v. Gulf Electric Company, 343 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.) ; 17 Tex.Jur.2d, Damages, § 200.
In the absence of a special exception, the general rule allows a recovery of interest as damages under a prayer for general relief without the necessity of a specific prayer therefor, provided that the amount claimed in the pleadings is sufficient to cover the loss at the time of accrual of the cause of action and interest thereon from that date to time of trial. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. State, supra. John F. Buckner & Sons v. Arkansas Fuel Oil Corp., 319 S.W.2d 204 (Tex.Civ. App. — Waco 1958, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Lone Star Gas Company v. Mitchell, 407 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1966, n. w. h.). In the case before us, there is a prayer for general relief and the claim for damages is open-ended, and as such, is sufficient to include the interest antecedent to judgment in addition to the amount of specific damages claimed. Prejudgment interest in this case may be recovered.
There is no evidence that Laredo Hides, in any manner, endeavored to increase its damages sustained when H & H refused to deliver any more hides to it. Laredo Hides, in purchasing the hides in substitution of the hides which should have been delivered under the contract, acted promptly and in a reasonable manner. The facts of this case regarding the issue of liability of H & H and the issues pertaining to damages suffered by Laredo Hides, have been fully and completely developed in the court below. The facts upon which judgment should have been rendered for Laredo Hides by the trial court are conclusively established. It, therefore, becomes the duty of this Court to render judgment which the trial court should have rendered. Rule 434, T.R.C.P.; Sutton v. Reagan & Gee, 405 S.W.2d 828, 838 (Tex.Civ.App.— San Antonio 1966, writ ref’d, n. r. e.); Parkerson v. American Hospital & Life Insurance Co., 322 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Civ. App. — Texarkana 1959, writ dism’d).
Interest at the rate of 6% per annum can be precisely determined on the exact difference between the contract price and *223the purchase price of the substitute hides for each of the months involved. That interest amounts to $7,132.51. Laredo Hides, in its brief, seeks interest on incidental damages only from December 31, 1972, when the contract terminated of its own terms. That interest amounts to $124.10.
Applying the rules announced by the above cited cases and authorities to the instant case, we hold that the record does not support the findings of fact made by the trial judge and there is no legal justification for the conclusion of law reached by the court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and judgment is here rendered for Laredo Hides in the amount of $152,960.04, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from August 6, 1973, the date judgment was rendered by the trial court, until paid.
Reversed and rendered.

. Tex.Bus. & Commerce Code Ann., §§ 2.711, 2.712, 2.713, 2.715.