This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
1. Suppose a buyer notifies his repudiating seller that he intends to "await the latter's performance" and urges retraction. Without telling the seller, the buyer then makes a substitute "cover" purchase. The seller retracts but the buyer refuses to recognize the original contract and sues the seller for damages. What result under §§2-610 and 2-611? See Peters, Remedies for Breach of Contracts Relating to the Sale of Goods Under the Uniform Commercial Code: A Roadmap for Article Two, 73 Yale L.J. 199, 265-266 (1963).3
2. Reread U.C.C. §§2-712 and 2-713 (buyer's cover and market remedies), supra p. 1133. Putting these sections together with those on anticipatory repudiation, how do you think Missouri Furnace Co. v. Cochran would be decided under the Code? If the buyer elects to sue for damages under §2-713, does §2-713(2) codify the holding in the Missouri Furnace case? What is the meaning of the phrase, "any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller," in §2-712(1)? Does the requirement in §2-712(1) that the buyer cover "without unreasonable delay" disallow the very thing which the court in Missouri Furnace thought mandatory (a series of purchases, over the term of the repudiated contract, at the then-prevailing spot price)?
June 02, 2014
Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.