Hoffer Oil Corp. v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “But we think the appellant has mistaken its remedy. When a contract is divisible into separate or distinct parts, equity sometimes permits the injured party to rescind, on equitable terms, one such part, while adhering to another independent part; but where the contract is an entirety, or where there is but one entire consideration for a number of conditions, the contract must generally be rescinded as a whole, if rescinded at all. There can be no partial rescission and a refunding of a portion of the consideration, unless it be in an extreme case where there is no possible remedy other than through such a proceeding. The conditions shown in the complaint before us do not call for any such extreme remedy. For the breach of the condition complained of here, the remedy is found in an action to recover the actual damages suffered because of such breach of the condition. These ordinarily would be the expenses incurred in compelling the respondent to perform its covenants, and the losses it suffered because of the failure on the part of the respon dent to save it from being sued, but it could not be that part of the whole consideration which the appellant claims to have paid to obtain this particular covenant. The consideration paid is rarely, if ever, the measure of damages for the breach of a covenant. The fundamental idea of damages, in all such cases, is compensation for the injury suffered, and, be this greater or less than the consideration paid to secure the covenant, it is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilkinson v. Sample

2. “The contract being a usual one in the oil fields, we think evidence could be produced, in all probability, which would show what, under similar circumstances, is ordinarily and usually paid for such services. This, we think, would afford a reasonable basis for computation, and would furnish sufficient data for an approximate estimate of the value of such services. It would, of course, be something less than the full cost of drilling the well, because with the full amount the contributor could drill a well on his own land.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. R. Olsen Oil Co. v. Fidler

3. ““A reasonable basis for computation and the best evidence which is obtainable under the circumstances of the ease and which [would] enable the jury to arrive at an approximate estimate of the loss is sufficient.”,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frigiquip Corp. v. Parker-Hannifin Corp.