Notes - Oloffson v. Coomer | rauvinj | September 27, 2012

H2O Notes - Oloffson v. Coomer

Original Creator: Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman Current Version: rauvinj



1. Suppose it were the buyer (Oloffson) who had repudiated the contract. If the seller elected to sue for his market damages under §2-708(1), he would be permitted to recover the "difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price." Is this consistent with the Code's definition of the buyer's market damages in cases of anticipatory repudiation? Which formula seems to you the better one? Consult the article by Jackson, quoted in Note 2, supra p. 1306, at 101-112.


2. U.C.C. §2-723 (Proof of Market Price: Time and Place) provides, in part:


If an action based on anticipatory repudiation comes to trial before the time for performance with respect to some or all of the goods, any damages based on market price (Section 2-708 or Section 2-713) shall be determined according to the price of such goods prevailing at the time when the aggrieved party learned of the repudiation.


What is the rationale for this provision? Is the time a buyer learns of the seller's repudiation (§2-723) the same as the time he learns of the seller's breach (§2-713(1))? For a learned argument that in cases of anticipatory repudiation, a buyer may be said to learn of the seller's breach only at the time of performance, see J. White and R. Summers, Handbook of the Law Under the Uniform Commercial Code 197-202 (1972). For an equally learned criticism of this interpretation, see Professor Jackson's article, supra p. 1306, at 105.


Annotated Text Information

February 15, 2015 Notes - Oloffson v. Coomer Notes - Oloffson v. Coomer

Author Stats


Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large