Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hartman Pacific Co. v. Estee

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 21, 1924No. 18035Published

1DissentBridges, J.

(dissenting in part) — I concur in all that is said in the foregoing opinion except that the respondent is entitled to only nominal damages. As I read it, the court holds that the vendor, having elected to resell, was bound to do so within a reasonable time, and since it did not do so, it can recover only nominal damages, notwithstanding the testimony shows, and the court concludes, that the market value at the time the sale should have been made was fifteen cents per dozen less than the contract price. I do not think this the correct measure of damage, nor the one supported by the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pratt v. S. Freeman & Sons Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  2. T. B. Scott Lumber Co. v. Hafner-Lothman Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Mendel v. Miller & SonsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  4. White Walnut Coal Co. v. Crescent Coal & Mining Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Brooke v. RobsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API