Legal Opinion
Scotton v. Wright
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided March 7, 1923No. 43PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pennewill, C. J.:
In addition to the loss of profits or business that the plaintiffs would have received if the defendants had not broken their contract, the plaintiffs claim damages for the permanent impairment of the good will that went with the business they purchased. This claim is based on the reduced value of the business caused by the breach of the restrictive agreement.
We think the authorities support the plaintiffs’ claim, but the question is, how shall such damage be proved?
Some of the authorities that seem to be opposed to the plaintiffs’ contention are based on the impossibility or…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Griffin v. . ColverNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Shaw v. Jones, Newton & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Brigham & Co. v. CarlisleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Peltz v. EicheleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Gregory v. SpiekerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Henne v. BalickSupreme Court of Delaware · 1958
- Nye Odorless Incinerator Corp. v. FeltonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1931
- Gallagher v. VogelNebraska Supreme Court · 1953
- Matrix Group Limited, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Company K2, Inc., Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees. Matrix Group Limited, Inc., a Florida Corporation With a Principal Place of Business in Safety Harbor, County of Pinellas, State of Florida, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation With a Principal Place of Business in Fenton, County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
- D. W. Trowbridge Ford, Inc. v. GalyenNebraska Supreme Court · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.