In re the Receivership of D. Ross & Son, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
In the matter of exceptions filed by the receiver of Ross & Son, Incorporated, to a claim by the McCall Company of liquidated damages for breach of contract. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The exceptions to the claim of the McCall Company relate to these facts: The Ross Company agreed to buy from the McCall Company a certain quantity of patterns during a term of five years, which would expire on December 12, 1918. It was provided that if either should *436“intentionally” break any of the terms and refuse or fail after two weeks’ notice in writing promptly to perform, then the other may be released from all further performance and may recover as estimated and agreed damages a sum of money equal to one-third of the agreed charge of all goods agreed to be delivered…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1912
- People v. . Metropolitan Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Wells v. Hartford Manilla Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- Malcomson v. Wappoo MillsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1898
- Griffith v. Blackwater Boom & Lumber Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanssenSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Wilmington Housing Authority v. Pan Builders, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- W & G Seaford Associates, L.P. v. Eastern Shore Markets, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1989
- Napier v. Peoples Stores Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Tri-Plex Security Alarm SystemsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.