36 N.J. Super. 128 - Locks v. Wade’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An illustration with figures may make this more graphic. If the agreed rental under the lease amounts to $2,040, the cost of installation and of furnishing records and parts to $500, and the depreciation on the jukebox over the period of the lease to $700, the lessor stands to make $840 on the deal. If another customer presents himself, the lessor will buy another jukebox, which he is entitled to enter on his books at cost and depreciate in the same way as he does with the first. Thus, if he makes the same agreement with the second customer, he will make another $840 on the second lease. If the first lessee repudiates his agreement, the purchase of an additional machine will of course, be unnecessary, because the first machine can be leased to the second customer. In such a situation, under defendant’s theory, the lessor would receive as damages for this repudiation only the $2,040 rental agreed on under the first lease, less the $2,040 rental for the same machine under the second lease, or nothing. This would leave the lessee only the $840 profit he will make under the second lease; whereas had the first lessee lived up to his bargain the lessor’s profits would have been $840 on each of two leases, or $1,680. We conclude that the proper measure of damages here is the difference between the contract price and the cost of performing the first contract, as the court appar ently held below. In the case of realty which (unlike the jukebox) is specific and not to be duplicated on ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Corner v. Pinnacle, Inc.

2. “We think the position plaintiff takes on the matter is sound. Where, as here, a plaintiff lessor agrees to lease an article of which the supply in the market is for practical purposes not limited, then the law would be depriving him of the benefit of his bargain if on the breach of the agreement, it required his claim against the lessee to be reduced by the amount he actually did or reasonably could realize on a reletting of the article. For if there had been no breach and another customer had appeared, the lessor could as well have secured another such article and entered into a second lease. In case of the breach of the first lease, he should have the benefit of both bargains or not—in a situation where the profit on both would be the same—be limited to the profit on the second of them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 319 N.J. Super. 662 - CIC Corp. v. Ragtime, Inc.