Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R. W. Borrowdale Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “the plaintiff’s claim for the cost of the additional equipment and for the loss of future profits [was] irreconcilable and inconsistent with its claim for specific performance” but not in terms of a termination clause mandating certain obligations
• finding that “the plaintiff’s claim for the cost of the additional equipment and for the loss of future profits [was] irreconcilable and inconsistent with its claim for specific performance” but not in terms of a termination clause mandating certain obligations
• where specific performance was previously found unenforceable, there was no threat of double recovery by virtue of plaintiff’s claim for legal damages
• where specific performance was previously found unenforceable, there was no threat of double recovery by virtue of plaintiff's claim for legal damages
• \[T]he trial court hearing [equitable] matters has full jurisdiction to award such legal damages as have resulted from delay in the performance of the contract in addition to decreeing specific performance\
• “[T]he trial court hearing [equitable] matters has full jurisdiction to award such legal damages as have resulted from delay in the performance of the contract in addition to decreeing specific performance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).