Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. v. Iten Chevrolet, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• contingency that seller would be unable to procure truck from General Motors “was clearly . . . foreseen . . . before entering the contract,” and thus seller not excused
• asking \whether the risk of the given contingency was so unusual or unforeseen and would have such severe consequences that to require performance would be to grant the promisee an advantage for which he could not be said to have bargained in making the contract\
• asking “whether the risk of the given contingency was so unusual or unforeseen and would have such severe consequences that to require performance would be to grant the promisee an advantage for which he could not be said to have bargained in making the contract”
• \A buyer who seeks damages for breach of contract has the burden of proving the extent of his damages.\
• “Fair rental value of a replacement vehicle has generally been recognized by courts . . . as a fair approximate measure of damages incurred by the loss of the use of a vehicle.”
• treating the four- factor test as four factual questions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).