H. D. Williams Cooperage Co. v. Scofield

Citations

• 115 F. 119
• 53 C.C.A. 23
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4196

Syllabus

<p>1. Sales — Breach of Contract — Defenses—Knowledge.</p> <p>Where defendant agreed to supply plaintiffs with their entire requirements of new barrels for a certain year at specified prices, and defendant refused to fill plaintiffs’ order for barrels, it was not necessary, In an action by plaintiffs for breach of contract, in order to entitle defendant to urge as a defense that plaintiffs had ordered barrels for use in the succeeding year, that he should have had knowledge of plaintiffs’ breach of contract in so ordering barrels at the time of his refusal to deliver.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>Where, in an action for breach of a contract to furnish plaintiffs with their entire requirements of barrels for a certain year, there was evidence that plaintiffs had sold barrels to another party, which had been ordered for plaintiffs’ use from defendant, such sale was not a defense to the action, if made in good faith, and merely for the purpose of accommodating the person served, and not for speculation.</p> <p>8. Same — Contracts—Dependent Covenant.</p> <p>Where defendant contracted to supply plaintiffs with all new barrels needed during a certain year, at specified prices, such contract contained an implied covenant that the plaintiffs were to order only such barrels as were necessary for their business, which was dependent on defendant’s covenant to supply; and the breach of the plaintiffs’ covenant, by ordering barrels with a view to stocking up for another year, and for sale to other parties, constituted a breach of their contract, which entitled defendant to refuse further delivery and rescind the contract</p>