Skip to main content
· 6/15/1915

Delaware Marine Supply Manufacturing Co. v. Philadelphia Lamp Manufacturing Co.

Citations

  • 28 Del. 524
  • 5 Boyce 524
  • 95 A. 235
  • 1915 Del. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>1. Contracts—Manufacture of Goods—Rescission—Damages.</p> <p>The seller in an executory contract for the manufacture and delivery of goods, injured by the buyer’s rescission, cannot recover additional damages by ignoring such rescission and proceeding with the manufacture and delivery.</p> <p>2. Contracts—Manufacture of Goods—Rescission—Performance.</p> <p>An executory contract for defendant’s manufacture and delivery of goods was terminated upon its rescission by plaintiff, except for the purpose of defendant’s recovery of damages, if any, from the breach; and defendant could not perform under the terms of the rescinded contract, nor did he have such right under a provision that, on the plaintiff's failure to carry out its contract to take over and pay for the goods manufactured, the defendant might sell such goods for the plaintiff’s account.</p> <p>3. Replevin—Action—Damages for Rescission of Contract.</p> <p>The question of damages for a breach of contract cannot be determined in an action of replevin.</p> <p>4. Bailment—Rescission of Contract—Right of Possession.</p> <p>Where an executory contract, under which defendant was to manufacture and deliver goods to plaintiff, and under which the plaintiff was to deliver , to defendant all necessary tools, was terminated by plaintiff’s rescission of the contract, the defendant’s right of possession of the tools was also terminated, and plaintiff was entitled to replevin to recover possession of the tools.</p>

Judges: Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.