Craigslist Transaction - Seller sold to someone else! Breached?

[tranquility]

I just glanced at the thread, but continue to disagree with the measure of damages on contractual issues. Breach of contract is not a tort. Why so many posters who are generally correct continue ot post the tort measure (to make whole) of damages rather than the contractual measure (benefit of the bargin) confuses me.

Can any one of the posters provide any reference for their opinion?

 

[BoredAtty]

I just glanced at the thread, but continue to disagree with the measure of damages on contractual issues. Breach of contract is not a tort. Why so many posters who are generally correct continue ot post the tort measure (to make whole) of damages rather than the contractual measure (benefit of the bargin) confuses me.

Can any one of the posters provide any reference for their opinion?

IMO, the law is very clear on the issue (you're correct -- it's benefit fo the bargain).

The OP is in Florida, so here's a source for that state:

The goal of an award of damages in a breach of contract action is "to restore the injured party to the condition which he would have been in had the contract been performed." Campbell v. Rawls, 381 So.2d 744, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), cited with approval Grossman Holdings, Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Fla.1982). Koplowitz v. Girard, 658 So.2d 1183 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1995).

 

[seniorjudge]

IMO, the law is very clear on the issue (you're correct -- it's benefit fo the bargain).

The OP is in Florida, so here's a source for that state:

The goal of an award of damages in a breach of contract action is "to restore the injured party to the condition which he would have been in had the contract been performed." Campbell v. Rawls, 381 So.2d 744, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), cited with approval Grossman Holdings, Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Fla.1982). Koplowitz v. Girard, 658 So.2d 1183 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1995).

And the party here was never injured!

 

[BoredAtty]

And the party here was never injured!

As I wrote in a prior post:

"the OP can purchase a comparable item from another seller (for a reasonable price), and sue the breaching seller for the difference if there is one."

The difference is the injury. If there is no difference, then there is no injury.

 

[seniorjudge]

As I wrote in a prior post:

"the OP can purchase a comparable item from another seller (for a reasonable price), and sue the breaching seller for the difference if there is one."

The difference is the injury. If there is no difference, then there is no injury.

If that were the standard (and it is not) then our courts would be clogged with disgruntled buyers.

 

[tranquility]

If that were the standard (and it is not) then our courts would be clogged with disgruntled buyers.

Rather than continuing to write a check I don't think you can cash, would you care to come up with the money of a cite? A cite to any "authority", case law, UCC, state statue, journal article, horn book, on-line law school notes from a poor student, *anything* would be fine to at least have something to argue about.

I mean, my goodness, neither of us has proven to be a complete fool in our posts and I fundamentally disagree with you. This is not some complex area where subleties rule. This is black-letter law. Again, unless I'm missing something.

 

[BoredAtty]

If that were the standard (and it is not) then our courts would be clogged with disgruntled buyers.

UCC § 2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.

(1) If the seller wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance, the buyer may "cover" by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller.

(2) The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.

 

[seniorjudge]

Rather than continuing to write a check I don't think you can cash, would you care to come up with the money of a cite? A cite to any "authority", case law, UCC, state statue, journal article, horn book, on-line law school notes from a poor student, *anything* would be fine to at least have something to argue about.

I mean, my goodness, neither of us has proven to be a complete fool in our posts and I fundamentally disagree with you. This is not some complex area where subleties rule. This is black-letter law. Again, unless I'm missing something.

Do you agree with BoredAttorney that this is a UCC transaction?

 

[seniorjudge]

Rather than continuing to write a check I don't think you can cash, would you care to come up with the money of a cite? A cite to any "authority", case law, UCC, state statue, journal article, horn book, on-line law school notes from a poor student, *anything* would be fine to at least have something to argue about.

I mean, my goodness, neither of us has proven to be a complete fool in our posts and I fundamentally disagree with you. This is not some complex area where subleties rule. This is black-letter law. Again, unless I'm missing something.

Here's something I found on the back of an old Cheerios box:

Where nonperformance is total, for example, the damaged party should get back any money he has paid, along with additional money to compensate him for any actual financial loss which resulted from the nonperformance. The loss must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the nonperformance.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul08.htm



I am also quoting black letter law: No damages, no case. The poster here (and I will assume he is 100% truthful) HAD NO DAMAGES!!!

Just kidding about the Cheerios.

 

[BoredAtty]

Here's something I found on the back of an old Cheerios box:

Where nonperformance is total, for example, the damaged party should get back any money he has paid, along with additional money to compensate him for any actual financial loss which resulted from the nonperformance. The loss must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the nonperformance.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul08.htm



I am also quoting black letter law: No damages, no case. The poster here (and I will assume he is 100% truthful) HAD NO DAMAGES!!!

Just kidding about the Cheerios.

A paraphrasing of the law from a pseudo-legal website is not exactly the most pursuasive authority. On top of that, I disagree with your interpretation of that paragraph.

If a buyer is forced to purchase an item for a higher price than he orginally bargained for because of a seller's breach of contract, is that not an "actual financial loss which resulted from the nonperformance"?

As for the UCC: Is the UCC not applicable? Why?

 

[seniorjudge]

...

If a buyer is forced to purchase an item for a higher price than he orginally bargained for because of a seller's breach of contract, is that not an "actual financial loss which resulted from the nonperformance"?

....

The buyer here was not forced to do anything.

No damages, no case.

 

[Zigner]

The buyer here was not forced to do anything.

No damages, no case.

AND, how can the buyer purchase a "comparable" item without ever having seen or otherwise examined the item in the first place???

Again, I still feel there was no enforceable contract in this particular case...it was all much too vague.

 

[tranquility]

The paragraph before says:

The purpose of damages in suits on contracts is at best to place the
injured party in as nearly as possible the same position he would
have been in had the contract been properly performed, and at least
to restore him as nearly as possible to the position he would have
been in had he made no contract at all. In other words, no one
should suffer loss because another has failed to perform a contract
properly.

If the contract had been performed (In this particular thread's facts, I'm not sure there was a contract.) the OP would have a thing for a price. The thing was not sold so OP buys another thing and his damages or "loss" from what would happen if the contract was property performed is the difference in price. He does have damages. He does have an actual loss. How much may be difficult to prove as there is the problem of finding the cover price. (Which is far easier with fungible and/or new items.)

I believe the provisions of the UCC regarding goods would apply. The specific portions related only to merchants would not. Of course, "UCC" wouldn't, but the Florida statutes reflecting the UCC would. Rather than 2-712, I would have chosed 2-713 enacted in Florida as 672.713.
---------------------------
672.713 Buyer's damages for nondelivery or repudiation.--

(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (s. 672.723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this chapter (s. 672.715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.

(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.

 

[BoredAtty]

The paragraph before says:


If the contract had been performed (In this particular thread's facts, I'm not sure there was a contract.) the OP would have a thing for a price. The thing was not sold so OP buys another thing and his damages or "loss" from what would happen if the contract was property performed is the difference in price. He does have damages. He does have an actual loss. How much may be difficult to prove as there is the problem of finding the cover price. (Which is far easier with fungible and/or new items.)

I believe the provisions of the UCC regarding goods would apply. The specific portions related only to merchants would not. Of course, "UCC" wouldn't, but the Florida statutes reflecting the UCC would. Rather than 2-712, I would have chosed 2-713 enacted in Florida as 672.713.
---------------------------
672.713 Buyer's damages for nondelivery or repudiation.--

(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (s. 672.723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this chapter (s. 672.715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.

(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.

I agree that 2-713 could be used. However, the OP would need to show that the market price of the item increased after the formation of the contract. With 2-712, there is no need to argue whether the market value of the item has increased, as the OP could find a reasonable substitute at a higher price and sue for the difference. It's an easier argument (though not applicable if the OP cannot find a suitable substitute).

 

[BoredAtty]

The buyer here was not forced to do anything.

No damages, no case.

What kind of force do you think is required? Physical force?

How about this...what kind of car do you drive, seniorjudge?