Legal Opinion

Coleman v. Magnolia Provision Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 25, 1926No. 3234. [fn*]PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILLSON, G. J.

(after stating the facts as above). It will be noted that a method provided by rule 212 set out in the statement above for fixing the amount of damages, if any, where a buyer having a right to treat a contract as breached elected to do so, was for the buyer to go on the market (through a broker recognized by the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association) and buy the product he was entitled to have the seller deliver to him. Pursuing that method, the amount of the damages would be the difference between the sum the buyer had to pay for the product on the market and the sum he would…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Scottish Union & National Insurance v. ClancyTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Dallas Waste Mills v. Early-Foster Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1919
  3. Planters' Oil Co. v. GreshamCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
  4. Price v. Advance-Rumley Thresher Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Watson v. BoswellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1901

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. MeinsenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
  2. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. MeinsenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API