Roth & Company v Taysen Townsend & Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1895 |
| Date | 12 December 1895 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Queen's Bench Division
Mathew, J.
Roth and Co. v. Taysen, Townsend, and Co. and Grant and Co.
Brown v. MullerENR 27 L. T. Rep. 272 L. Rep. 7 Ex. 319
Frost v. Knight 26 L. T. Rep. at p. 79
Roper v. Johnson 28 L. T. Rep. 296 L. Rep. 8 C. P. 167
Wilson v. HicksUNK 26 L. J. 242, Ex.
Contract Measure of damages Sale of goods to be delivered at future time
120 MARITIME LAW CASES. Q.B. Div.] Ross and Co. v. Taysen, Townsend, and Co. and Grant and Co. [Q.B. Div. Dec. 9 and 12,1895. (Before Mathew, J.) Roth and Co. v. Tatsen, Tovnsend, and Co. and Grant and Co. (a) Contract - Measure of damages - Sale of goods to be delivered at future time - Repudiation by buyer - Acceptance of repudiation by bringing action - Subsequent resale by seller. By a contract, made on the 24-th May 1895, the defendants purchased from the plaintiff's a cargo of maize, to be shipped from a port in the Argentine Republic about the 15th July. The market was then falling, and on the 28th May the buyers repudiated the contract, and on the 24th July the plaintiffs brought this action for damages for non-acceptance of the goods. The prices at that time were fatting continuously, and there was no prospect of their recovery. If the plaintiffs had re-sold about the 2Ath July, when they brought this action, the loss on the contract price of the cargo would have been 1557?., but they did not re-sell until the vessel and cargo arrived at her port of call on the 5th Sept., when the loss was 3807l. Held, that the measure of damages was the stun of 1557?., being the difference between the contract price and the market price on the 24th July, when the plaintiffs accepted the defendants' repudiation by bringing this action, as, having regard to the falling prices, the plaintiffs ought to have re-sold at that time, and ought not to have waited until the arrival of the cargo on the 5th Sept. Commercial cause tried by Mathew, J. The action was brought by Messrs. Louis Both and Co. Limited, of London, against the defendants, Grant and Grahame, of Aberdeen, for damages for breach of contract for non-acceptance of a cargo of maize, and against the defendants, Taysen, Townaend, and Co., of London, for breach of contract, or breach of warranty to make a contract. On the 24th May 1893 the defendants Taysen and Co., purporting to act for and on account of the defendants Grant and Co., signed a contract note for the sale to Grant and Co., of a cargo of maize, consisting of about 2800 tons, at the price of 2ls. ??. per quarter of 4801b., to be shipped for the plaintiffs per the steamer Haverstoe, expected to load about the 15th July, from a port or ports in the Argentine Republic and (or) Uruguay, to any safe port in the United Kingdom, or on the Continent between Bordeaux and Hamburg, both included. The ship was chartered by the plaintiffs, the cargo of maize was loaded, and the ship and cargo were expected to arrive on or about the 5th Sept. at her port of call (St. Vincent). The contract note having been signed on the 24th May, the buyers, the defendants, Grant and Co., on the 28th May, sent as the plaintiffs a telegram repudiating the contract, on the ground that Taysen and Co. had no authority to make it on their behalf. The market price was then falling, and the buyers adhered to their position and refused to accept delivery of the maize, and after some correspondence and an unsuccessful attempt to induce the buyers to go to arbitration, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gebruder Metelmann G.m.b.H. & Company K.G. v N.B.R (London) Ltd
...the acceptance of the repudation, the claimant must do what, if anything, is reasonable to decrease the damages ( Roth v. Tayson (1896) 12 Times Law Reports 211 per Lord Esher, M.R., affirming a decision of Mr. Justice Mathew). 9 The foundation for Mr. Mance's argument is a finding by the l......
-
Nickoll & Knight v Ashton, Edridge & Company
...31 L. T. Rep. 789 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 435 L. Rep. 10 C. P. 125 Roth v. Taysen, Townsend, and Co.DID=ASPMUNK 73 L. T. Rep. 628 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 120 affirmed in C. A. 1 Com. Cas. 306 Sale of goods — Contract for sale of cargo — Cargo to be shipped by specified ship at specified time 94 M......
- Sudan Import Company Ltd v Societe Generale de Compensation
- Sudan Import Company Ltd v Societe Generale de Compensation
-
Compensation for Harm to Economic Interests
...to the plaintiff, it can be defended in terms of policy. At the 10 Roth (L) & Co Ltd v Taysen, Townsend & Co and Grant and Grahame (1896), 12 TLR 211 (CA). 11 [1916] AC 175 (PC). R EMEDIES: THE LAW OF DAMAGES 26 time of the breach the plaintiff had an option: either to sell the shares immed......
-
Table of cases
...152 Roth (L) & Co Ltd v Taysen, Townsend & Co and Grant and Grahame (1896), 1 Com Cas 306, 12 TLR 211 (CA) ............. 25, 443, 461 Rotman v Pennett (1921), 49 OLR 114, 64 DLR 34 (CA) ..................................... 77 Rough Bay Enterprises Ltd v Budden (2003), 22 BCLR (4th) 326, [2......
-
Compensation for Harm to Economic Interests
...the breach and may not claim the additional loss in value. 9 9 Roth (L.) & Co. Ltd. v. Taysen, Townsend & Co. and Grant and Grahame (1896), 12 T.L.R. 211 (C.A.). Compensation for Harm to Economic Interests 23 These timing principles are general rules, based upon the presumption that the pla......
-
Compensation for Harm to Economic Interests
...the plaintiff will take reasonable steps, at the time of the 9 Roth (L.) & Co. Ltd. v. Taysen, Townsend & Co. and Grant and Grahame (1896), 12 T.L.R. 211 (C.A.). Compensation for Harm to Economic Interests 23 breach, to mitigate the harm caused by the breach. Only rarely will the plaintiff ......