Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractdamagesappealtrialmotion

contractbreach of contractdamagestrialmotion

Related Cases

Hess Die Mold, Inc. v. American Plasti-Plate Corp., 653 S.W.2d 927, 36 UCC Rep.Serv. 1632

Facts

American, engaged in injection molding of plastics, contracted with Hess to design and build a new die mold after the existing one became worn. Hess quoted a price of $23,445.00, which American accepted, making a down payment of $11,722.50. However, Hess failed to deliver a functional mold, forcing American to contract with another manufacturer for a new mold at a cost of $47,500, resulting in an excess cost of $24,065.

American is in the business of injection molding of plastics. Hess manufactures die molds. One of American's molds had become old and worn to the point that it no longer performed satisfactorily, and it solicited bids for a new one. On April 27, 1979, Hess submitted a quote to American to design and build a suitable mold at a price of $23,445.00, one-half in advance and the balance due on delivery.

Issue

Whether the damages awarded to American for breach of contract were properly characterized as general damages and whether the trial court erred in denying Hess's motion for a new trial based on the claim that the damage award was excessive.

Rule

General damages are those that naturally and necessarily flow from a wrongful act and are presumed to have been foreseen by the breaching party, while special damages must be shown to have been contemplated by the parties at the time of contracting.

General damages are those which naturally and necessarily flow from a wrongful act, are so usual an accompaniment of the kind of breach alleged that the mere allegation of the breach gives sufficient notice, and are conclusively presumed to have been foreseen or contemplated by the party as a consequence of his breach of contract.

Analysis

The court determined that the $24,065 awarded to American was a proper item of general damages because it was foreseeable that failure to deliver a suitable mold would force American to seek a replacement. The court noted that the time limit for delivery was only eighteen weeks, and Hess's failure to meet this obligation led to American incurring additional costs. The court also referenced the Texas Business and Commerce Code, which allows a buyer to recover the difference between the cost of cover and the original contract price.

In our opinion, the damage award of $24,065.00 is properly characterized at an item of general damages. Hess contracted to replace an existing mold which American was actively using in its manufacturing process. It should have been clearly foreseeable to Hess that if it failed to supply a suitable new mold to American within the time specified, American would be forced to obtain said mold from another manufacturer in order to meet its commitments to its customers.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the damage award was appropriate and that Hess's claims regarding the need for contemplation of damages were unfounded.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Who won?

American prevailed in the case because the court found that the damages awarded were general damages that naturally flowed from Hess's breach of contract.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password