E. W. Bliss Co. v. Buffalo Tin Can Co.

Citations

• 131 F. 51
• 65 C.C.A. 289
• 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4264

Syllabus

<p>1. Manufacture and Sale of Machinery — Contracts—Breach—Measure of Damages.</p> <p>In an action for breach of a contract for the manufacture and sale of machinery, the buyer’s measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the machinery at the time and place where it was to be delivered, or, if there was no market value, then the difference between the contract price and what it would have cost the buyer to have the machinery manufactured; and this though plaintiff did not attempt to have equivalent machinery made.</p> <p>¶1. Contracts for sale of things to be produced or manufactured, see note to Star Brewery Co. v. Horst, 58 C. C. A. 303.</p> <p>2. Same — Lost Profits.</p> <p>“Where, at the time a contract for the manufacture and sale of machinery was made, no notice was given to the seller that the machinery was to be used by a corporation to supply tin cans under an existing contract, the seller, on a breach of the contract, was not liable for alleged lost profits, based on the opinion and estimates of experts respecting the producing capacity of the contract machinery, and the probable output of the factory in which it was to be used, if the factory had been supplied with such machinery, properly installed, and operated to its capacity, etc.; such profits being speculative and uncertain.</p> <p>3. Same — Defenses.</p> <p>Where defendant contracted to manufacture and sell to plaintiff certain machinery, defendant was not entitled to refuse performance on the ground that the machinery contracted for would infringe outstanding patents.</p>