Skip to main content
· 6/2/1904

Habeler v. Rogers

Citations

  • 131 F. 43
  • 65 C.C.A. 281
  • 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4262

Syllabus

<p>1. Sales — Breach op Contract by Buyer — Seller’s Remedies.</p> <p>On breach of a contract of sale by the buyer, the seller is entitled, after everything necessary to vest title in the buyer has been done, to store or retain the goods for the buyer’s benefit, and recover the contract price; to sell the goods, after notice to the buyer, for the latter’s account, and recover the difference between the contract price and the net proceeds of the sale; or, without doing either, to recover the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods at the time and place of delivery.</p> <p>2. Same — Tendee.</p> <p>Where a buyer notified the seller of goods that he would not accept the same, the seller was not required to make a formal tender of the goods in order to sustain an action for breach of contract.</p> <p>3. Same — Ability to Perform — Evidence.</p> <p>Where, in an action for breach of a contract to purchase 5,000 tons of phosphate rock, to be delivered between February 1 and June 1, 1900, at the buyer’s option, at the rate of not more than 2,500 tons in a month, the sellers proved that they were selling agents of an association of phosphate rock miners in Tennessee, and exclusive selling agents of another mining concern in that state, and had a contract with each to deliver in April and May, 1900, as much as 2,500 tons per month of such rock as was called for in the contract, and that each had the requisite quantity of rock on hand to supply the contract, the evidence was sufficient to establish the sellers’ ability to perform.</p> <p>¶ 2. See Sales, vol. 43, Cent. Dig. § 1087.</p> <p>4. Same — Election op Remedies.</p> <p>Where, after defendants notified plaintiffs that they would not accept phosphate rock contracted for, plaintiffs gave notice of their intention to store or resell such rock, such notice did not constitute such an election by plaintiffs to treat the contract as still subsisting for the benefit of the defendants as precluded p

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting than a claim of privilege cannot be sustained purely on the basis of unsworn information

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wallace

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.