Stroh Brewery Company v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co.

513 F. Supp. 827 (1981)

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

A carload of 'Stroh Bulk Type Malt,' which had been ordered by P from the Rahr Malting Company in Shakopee, Minnesota, was placed in hopper car number CNW 172379. It was shipped by rail to Detroit. A carload of barley, which had been ordered by Rickel Malting Company, Inc. from Fleischmann Malting was placed in hopper car number CNW 173379 (Rickel Barley Car) and shipped by rail to Rickel. Both cars were transported to D's Farnsworth Siding in Detroit. D stores railroad cars there until delivery. The only 'hopper cars' there were those cars which were scheduled for delivery to P and Rickel. D sent notice to P and Rickel, informing them that their respective cars had arrived. P called D and requested delivery of eight cars. The Malt Car was included in that list of cars. Instead of delivering the Malt Car, the switch crew mistakenly delivered the Rickel Barley Car. P's employees did not notice that the Rickel Barley Car had been delivered in its place. P's standard procedures for unloading cars included an inspection of the car, checking car numbers, and recording the information on tracking sheets that included seal numbers, card number, and bin number. One sample is taken from each compartment and labeled appropriately as to the car number, date unloaded, supplier, type of material, and compartment number. P had the correct car number on its business records. It had an opportunity to discover that (1) one of the cars bore the wrong car number and (2) the contents within the car was barley, not malt. The barley got through and was used and contaminated product and burned out grinding engines. P subsequently sold the contaminated malt-barley mixture as feed and paid Rickel for the value of the bulk barley. At all times, the employees of D knew the specifics of the carloads and knew what they would be used for. They were well aware of the significance of the contents of each as P hopper cars had to be delivered in a specific order because of the different contents in the cars. P sued D for breach of contract. P sought out of pocket damages the malt which was contaminated when mixed with the bulk barley; the cost of removing that mixture from brewing facility; the cost of the bulk barley delivered, less the amount received for the malt-barley mixture which were allegedly caused by the misdelivery. On a second breach of contract action, P sought damages for the failure to deliver the Rickel Barley Car to Rickel. Damages for both claims amount to $ 19,198.99.