Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Cherwell (P) entered into an installment contract with Rytman (D) for the sale of Cherco Meal and C-R-T Meal. The contract called for shipments according to weekly instructions from the buyer with payments to be made within ten days after delivery. From the start, D was behind in his payments, and the arrearages were often quite substantial. P called these arrearages to D’s attention but P shipped from July 26 - April 23 until the arrearages became too great. D was concerned that P would not complete the contract because of a plant closure and the fact that the market price of the goods significantly exceeded the contract price. P and D talked about their mutual problems, and P told D that if he paid the monies in arrears that shipments would continue. D paid in full to March 31 with a check for $9,825.60. A few days later D stopped payment on his check because his driver was told that this would be the last shipment. The driver was not an employee of P. P demanded payment and D demanded written assurance of deliveries. The demand for assurance was reiterated in its direct reply to P’s demand for payment. D made no further payments either to make good on the stopped check or for 19 other accepted deliveries. P closed his plant on May 2 because of the inability to deliver goods and the stockpiling of excess material. The trial court determined that D was in default and seller was to recover $21,013.60. The trial court found that D had no reasonable grounds to doubt performance from P and that the information from the delivery person who did not work for P was not a valid reason for stopping payment. The court also found that D had, in fact, received reasonable assurances from P. It also found that D presented no reasonably accurate evidence to establish damages it might have sustained because of the seller’s failure to deliver. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co