Cole v. Melvin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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. “Seller's damages for nonacceptance or repudiation. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and to the provisions of this article with respect to proof of market price (section 7-2-723), the measure of damages for nonacceptance or repudiation by the buyer is the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price together with any incidental damages provided in this article (section 7-2-710), but less expenses saved in consequence of the buyer’s breach. (2) If the measure of damages provided in subsection (1) is inadequate to put the seller in as good a position as performance would have done then the measure of damages is the profit (including reasonable overhead) which the seller would have made from full performance by the buyer, together with any incidental damages provided in this article (section 7-2-710), due allowance for costs reasonably incurred and due credit for payments or proceeds of resale. Section 7-2-709 states: Action for the price. (1) When the buyer fails to pay the price as it becomes due the seller may recover, together with any incidental damages under section 7-2-710, the price: (a) Of goods accepted or of conforming goods lost or damages within a commercially reasonable time after risk of their loss has passed to the buyer; and (b) Of goods identified to the contract if the seller is unable after reasonable effort to resell them at a reasonable price or the circumstances reasonably indicate that such effort will be ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Foxco Industries, Ltd. v. Fabric World, Inc.

2. “[w]e are fully aware that the Court must avoid rewriting the contract; rather, it will be this Court’s endeavor to establish the intention of the parties at the time the agreement was made. We cannot pierce the parties’ mental processes to find out what images were on their brains, but must be content to examine the words which were used in the business context in which they were used in order to objectively establish the parties’ intentions. Looking at the words of the contract in the business setting in which they were written, the Court will try to answer the primary questions upon which a resolution of the controversy turns.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fox v. Burden

3. “This lack of notice obviates the need to delve into considerations of commercial "reasonableness"—especially the problematic questions about the time of resale. We can summarily conclude that the difference between resale price and contract price as a measure of damages must be rejected. Plaintiff's course of action subsequent to the breach (failure to comply with code provisions concerning resale) precludes application of the contract/resale price differential as a formula for calculation of damages.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jack Rabbit Lines, Inc. v. Neoplan Coach Sales, Inc.