The Court in Weathersby seems to be punishing him for not covering when he knew the contract will be breached by holding that the damage should only be the difference b/t contract price and market price at the time the contract was known to be breached (and not the market price at the time of the suit). So why doesn't the Court in Sedmak say that the Sedmaks should have covered at the time they knew that the contract will be breached by bidding on the car? (What if the price on that car is now much higher than it was at the time the contract was breached?)

-- Anonymous, October 15, 1998

Answers

the case of no money

I have one possible answer to that question. Theoretically, the Sedmaks could have bid on the car at the time of breach, bought it, and then sued for damages instead of specific performance. But what if the price of the car was bid up to the point that the Sedmaks did not have he money to pay for it? Or, alternatively, what if the Sedmaks could afford to pay the highest bid, but did not value the car enough to take the risk of buying it at that price and then not recovering damages in court?

The above scenario is much less likely in a case where the good, such as cotton, is readily available on the market and is not likely to be the subject of a bidding war.

Emel

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1998