Meinrath v. Singer by aiowmnyv

VIEWS: 2,190 PAGES: 2

									Buck v. Morrow, 21 S.W. 398, 1893 Can П recover consequential damages? Issue Reasoning
The trial court’s rule for measuring general damages for the breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. Granting general damages only assumes that the tenant can immediately find a replacement and like property. Whatever special damage naturally and proximately resulted to appellant from the sale of the land and termination of the lease -- whatever may reasonably be supposed to have entered into the contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract -- he should recover. П’s rent elsewhere may be admitted as a the primary evidence of market value, or even as the general measure of damages.


General damages for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment of a lease = K price – rental value for unexpired term. Tenant may recover as special damages (consequential damages) such extra expense and damage, if any, as are the natural and proximate result of the breach.

Morrow leased pasture land to Buck for a 5 year term. The lease K included a clause providing that should Morrow sell after the 2nd year, Buck will be compensated for any losses occasioned by the loss. The land was sold and Buck was dispossessed. He diligently tried to find another pasture, but found none until 5 months later. Buck lost 15 heads of cattle each worth $15, required extra hands to look after his herd at a cost of $1.5/day. Buck also incurred other expenses in trying to find another pasture. П sought to recover a total of $450.

Dissent Held Proc Δ argues
Buck should be able to recover consequential damages (or special damages) proximately caused by the breach. Trial court excluded all evidence of Buck’s damages as immaterial. Court said that measure of damage = difference, if any, between the K price and the rental value of the pasture for the unexpired term of the lease. No consequential damages are recoverable.

Meinrath v. Singer, 87 F.R.D. 422, 1980 63 Is Singer consequentially liable for the failure of П’s businesses because it failed to timely pay his bonuses? Issue Reasoning
П seeks to parlay Singer's knowledge of his and his companies' financial predicament into a claim that Singer was required to provide them with necessary financial capital by making prompt payment of all amounts due under the Agreement. o The Agreement contains no such explicit or implicit undertakings. For purposes of motion, assume bonus wrongly withheld. o Singer is not liable for consequential damages for the failure of П’s other businesses, unrelated to the K. П cited no cases where consequential damages were awarded for late payments other than interest. Sprang (and For Children)distinguishable: o Dealt with a specialty item not easily replaceable o Damages were natural outgrowth of breach. o Damages related solely to П’s efforts to complete the breached K and thereby mitigate damages. П’s claim is not for a unique article; only for payments withheld although due. o The claimed loss was not related to the completion of a K o It was incurred in other, wholly unrelated ventures. He could’ve bargained for that result by fixing liquidated damages for breach. o But in here, the loss is too remote and too speculative. o Not clear he would’ve invested the bonus wisely. PP reason for limiting recovery: otherwise infuse trial of a simple K dispute with evidence concerning П’s far-flung business empire. o Otherwise, every K dispute would be rendered complex, limited only by L’s imagination and conceptual theories of unrealized profits and opportunities.

Damage for Late payments: Damages for delay in the payment of money owing upon K are provided for in the allowance of interest, o which is in the nature of damages for withholding money that is due.

Meinrath (П)’s K with Singer required Singer to pay him bonuses which Singer knew he desperately needed to keep his other ventures afloat. Meinrath’s other businesses suffered substantial losses when bonuses were not timely paid. He sought to recover these damages as consequential damages. Singer moved for summary judgment on the issue of consequential damages.

Held Proc П argues

Loss is too remote and too speculative to be ascertainable – therefore, no recovery. Motion granted. Δ moved for summary judgment on issue of consequential damages. Singer had a special awareness of his financial plight and his dire needs for funds – this obligated Singer to make timely payments of the bonus. Relied on Sprang

To top