DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 3
Citation Numbers: 8 Pa. Super. 622, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 98
Judges: Oelady, Poetee, Porter, Rice, Smith
Filed Date: 11/14/1898
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Opinion by
The defendants bought from the plaintiffs in England certain plants of particular species, quality and condition. They were
Ordinarily, loss of profit is not damage for which recovery can be had, but the appellant here invokes the rule that when a purchaser of an article, which cannot be obtained in the general market, sells to a third party at a profit, the profit is the measure of damage between the original buyer and seller on a failure to deliver. This rule cannot be applied, when the goods are shown by testimony to be obtainable in the market, and to have some market value at the place of delivery, or where the terms of the contract of resale are not disclosed with completeness. Both of these objections to the application of the rale appear to exist in the present case as shown by the abstract of testimony with which we have been furnished, and lead us to affirm the ruling of the trial judge in excluding the alleged loss of profit from the consideration of the jury.
Judgment affirmed.