Brief Bigelow v. Gunny

Brief Bigelow v. - breach History The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff Bigelow-Sanford Inc Issue Should Bigelow’s cover purchases

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cameron Hartman 12/08/09 Seat # 59 BIGELOW-SANFORD, INC. v. GUNNY CORP. Facts: Bigelow-Sanford (Bigelow), the plaintiff, contracted with Gunny Corp. (Gunny), the defendant, for the purchase of 100,000 yards of jute at $.64 per yard. By April, 72,264 yards remained undelivered, and Gunny told Bigelow that no more would be delivered. In the middle of March, due to the lack of goods from Gunny, Bigelow had to replace the order at a price of $1.21 per yard through the spot market. Other companies also defaulted on their jute contracts, so as a result Bigelow had to purchase 164,503 yards on the spot market. Bigelow then sues Gunny to recover the losses that resulted from Gunny’s material contract
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: breach. History: The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Bigelow-Sanford, Inc. Issue: Should Bigelow’s cover purchases be used to measure damages against Gunny? Decision: Yes, the United States Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Bigelow. Reasons: UCC 2-711 and 2-713 provides for cover damages where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates the contract. It was decided that the plaintiff made his cover purchases in a reasonable manner because the purchases were only made to replace several vendors’ shipments. There was no viable reason to believe that the purchases were not made in good faith....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/17/2011 for the course BLAW 300 taught by Professor King during the Spring '11 term at University of Phoenix.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online