Court Opinion

ID: 9944244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 16:33:16.905377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:25.910264
License: Public Domain

ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR. Mar. 17, 1952 (57 So.2d 569).
Appellee insists that, regardless of any error in the instruction set out in our former opinion, it is not controlling for the reason that appellant testified that the market value of the product was, at the time of its breach in July 1949, $145 per ton, which was the price appellee had agreed to pay, and that therefore appellant sustained no loss.
The argument is that, assuming a breach of the contract, it was the duty of appellant, upon breach to dispose of the anhydrous ammonia at the market price, and *Page 705 
that, had it done so, it would have suffered no loss of profits and hence is not entitled to any charge against the deposit made with it by appellee.
The testimony on this point is disadvantageous to appellant which offered proof to the effect that, as stated above, the market price at the time of the breach was exactly what, under the theory most favorable to appellant, the appellee was obligated to pay. This view is supported by an agreement of counsel that in July 1949 appellant sold 57,722 gallons of the product at $145 per ton, and in August 10,598 gallons, and as late as September, 7,220 gallons, both at that price.
The issue, however, for the reasons stated in our former opinion, remains open as to whether under a subsequent oral contract, if such there was, it was the duty of Rex Nitrogen Company to make shipments to Merigold, as well as the alleged breach of the original or subsequent contract. Since there was no request by the plaintiff, appellee, for a directed verdict, the duty of the appellant to dispose, with reasonable promptness, of the amount allegedly purchased by appellee, and its right to take any credit to itself for loss of profits as a charge against the deposit, likewise is still in issue.
Appellant in its testimony disclaimed any right to charge the deposit with such items as storage or other overhead expense and rested his counterclaim solely upon an alleged loss of profits.
If the existence and terms of the original and subsequent contracts were made immaterial by a conclusive showing of a violation of a duty on the part of appellant to make reasonable and timely disposal of the products without loss of profits, a serious question would confront appellant. However, we need not, and do not, pass upon this question since the cause was not properly submitted in the instruction and the duty and ability of appellant to save itself from loss is not clearly shown.
Suggestion of error overruled.
Hall, Lee, Kyle and Arrington, JJ., concur. *Page 706