Cosden Oil &Chemical Co. v. Karl O. Helm Aktiengesellschaft

736 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1984).

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Helm (D), an international trading company based in Germany, decided to purchase a large amount of polystyrene from Cosden Oil & Chemical Company (P), a Texas-based producer of chemical products. P and D agreed to the purchase and sale of 1250 metric tons of high impact polystyrene at $.2825 per pound and 250 metric tons of general purpose polystyrene at $.265 per pound. Purchase confirmation 04 contained the terms for high impact, and 05 contained the terms for general purpose. Confirmation 04 specified that D had an option for an additional 1000 metric tons of high impact, and confirmation 05 expressed a similar option for 500 metric tons of general purpose. The first shipment of high impact under order 04, was to be delivered FAS at a New Jersey port to make a January 29 shipping date for a trans-Atlantic voyage. On January 23, D also declared the options on purchase orders 04 and 05, designating the high-impact option quantity as order 06 and the general purpose option quantity as order 07. D sent purchase confirmations 06 and 07, which P received on January 29. After shipping 90,000 pounds of the product, P informed D that delivery under the 04 contract might be delayed. A few days later, P informed D that it was canceling orders 05, 06, and 07 because it did not have enough product to fill the orders. Although P shipped over a million more pounds under 04, it was forced to cancel the remainder of 04 because it did not have enough product. P remained unpaid for the polystyrene that had been delivered. P sued, and the jury found that P had anticipatorily repudiated orders 05, 06, and 07 and that P's cancellation of order 04 before D's failure to pay for the second 04 delivery constituted a repudiation. The district court determined that D was entitled to damages of the difference between the contract price and the market price at a commercially reasonable time after P repudiated its delivery obligations and that P was entitled to an offset. P claimed that damages should be measured when D learned of the repudiation. D claimed that the market price at the time of performance should be used to compute damages. The district court awarded D $628,676 and P a $355,950 offset for unpaid deliveries. Both parties appealed.