W. H. FAULK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. W. RICHARDSON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Faulk sued Richardson for breach of contract regarding the purchase of an automobile. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for Richardson, holding that Richardson failed to mitigate damages by not promptly canceling the order when notified and by failing to keep Faulk informed of the car's status.
The judgment for Richardson must be reversed because he failed to mitigate damages by not promptly canceling the order when notified and failed in his duty to keep Faulk informed of the car's status. The damages award was improper as it was not supported by the record.
“Richardson upon his own showing owed some duty to Faulk to keep him advised of the status, and cannot be permitted to pile up the damages against one whom he had kept in the dark.”
Establishes Richardson's duty to mitigate damages and inform Faulk of the car's status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFaulk agreed to purchase an automobile through Richardson, to be delivered from a Michigan factory to Pensacola. On April 30, 1910, Faulk telegraphed …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Oral Contract Formation cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
— Faulk agreed to purchase through Eichardson an automobile from the factory at Lansing, Mich., to be delivered at Pensacola. The contract is alleged to have been an oral one, evidenced by certain correspom dence. On April 30, 1910, Faulk, who lived at Chipley', Fla., telegraphed to Eichardson at Milton, Fla., to “wire order in for Four Cylinder Car complete, check to follow,” and on the same date wrote enclosing a check for oné hundred dollars, as the first payment and directing that the contract be filled out as agreed upon and sent him for signature; also that he be posted as to when to expect the car. Five days thereafter Faulk writes “I wired you in ample time to cancel order. .1 also wrote you a day or so ago before getting your letter. I am enclosing the contract unsigned.” Payment on the check was stopped.
We are not advised what reply if any was made by Eichardson to this letter of May 5th, but at some timé he sold the car in Pensacola for $315 less than the contract price, but at “the highest price obtainable in the market,” and in this action recovered judgment for $300.
The declaration does not measure the damages by the difference between the contract and the market price, but it is measured by the difference betwéen contract price and the sale price of this machine in Pensacola. It is not denied that Richardson was notified, as asserted in Faulk’s letter of May 5, made part of the declaration, “in ample time to cancel the order” before the car left the shops in Michigan, nor does it appear that Faulk was ever advised that the car had left the shops until this action was brought. Richardson upon-his own showing owed some duty to Faulk to keep him advised of the status, and cannot be permitted to pile up the damages against one whom he had kept in the dark. See Benjamin on sale p. 807. 1
For aught that appears the prompt cancellation of the order at the time Richardson was notified would have entailed but nominal loss to either party, and we have no proper basis on this record for allowing a substantial recovery.
Judgment reversed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Hocker, J. J., concur.