Hartman Pacific Co. v. Estee

(concurring) — Some arguments advanced on rehearing, and the position taken by the minority, lead me to express briefly my reasons for concurring in the opinion previously filed in this case.

*698The respondent now contends that, even though it did not act with diligence in making a resale of the goods in question, yet it is entitled to substantial damages, because if the resale had been made within sixty days or ninety days it would have sustained a substantial loss. That situation, if true, does not affect the measure of damages to be here applied, because respondent has elected its remedy and…