Court Opinion

ID: 9868324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:28:58.27604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:49.214124
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Jones.
*1351 *134I concur in affirming the judgment. The case of Wallingford v. Tel. Co., 53 S. C., 410, is authority for the proposition that a telegraph company is liable *135in damages for failing to deliver a telegram containing an offer to buy a carload of mules at a specified price, whereby the plaintiff lost the opportunity to make said sale, which he would have made had the telegram been delivered in time, thereby compelling the plaintiff to keep> the mules for a time at expense and to subsequently sell them at a price less than the price offered. In that case, the ■measure of damages was the difference between the price offered and the best market price for which the mules could have been then sold, if less than the price offered.- The present case is a corollary of that. The telegram contained an offer to sell, and there was testimony, from which it could be inferred with reasonable certainty, that the purchase would have been- made if the telegram had been' delivered. By reason of the failure to deliver the telegram the plaintiff was rendered unable to'" buy meal at $1.30 per sack and was compelled to buy later at an advance, $1.40 and $1.44 per sack,' but as plaintiff had it in his. power to buy at $1.35, after being aware of the non-delivery of the telegram, his actual loss must be limited to the difference between the price offered and the price ats which he could have bought. As there are 1,500 sacks in five cars of meal, plaintiff’s' actual loss as a result of the non-delivery of the telegram did. not exceed $75. But as I agree with the view thát there was some evidence of recklessness, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Gary, there is no¡ ground for disturbing the verdict for $150.
This case is easily distinguishable from the case of Beatty Lumber Co. v. W. U. Telegraph Co., 44 S. E. Rep. (W. Va.), 309, as in that case there was no purchase at a higher price in consequence of the failure to deliver the telegram, and hence no certain loss. In so far -as the West Virginia case holds that there could be no actual damages for nondelivery of a telegram' containing an offe’r to sell, unless it appears with legal certainty that the offer would have been accepted and a sale or contract of sale consummated, it' is in accord with Wallingford v. Tel. Co., 53 S. C., 410, but in so far as the West Virginia case may be construed as holding *136that it is not a provable matter whether an offer to sell would have been accepted, it is inconsistent with the Wallingford case. In the Wallingford case the fact that the offer would have been accepted and a sale consummated was made legally certain by the allegations of the complaint admitted by the demurrer. In this case, the fact that the offer would have been accepted was made legally certain, not merely by the declaration of the plaintiff as to what he would have done,' but by the other circumstances in the case tending to show that a reasonably prudent person in his situation would have accepted the offer. The evide'nce tended to show that'his business was to buy and sell meal, that it was necessary for him to have meal to supply his customers, that he had asked for quotations with a view to purchase and was awaiting the telegram before purchasing, and especially that he actually did purchase at a higher price when the ñon-delivery of the telegram was discovered. The loss sustained, to the extent of five cents per sack, was not. contingent or speculative, but certain and definite, and was the natural and proximate result of the failure to' deliver the telegram.