Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Legal Remedies Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies

The Decline Of The Contract Market Damage Model, James J. White Jan 1988

The Decline Of The Contract Market Damage Model, James J. White

Articles

In law school every American lawyer learns that the conventional measure of damages for breach of a sales contract is the difference between the contract price and the market price. Even before these rules were embodied in the Uniform Sales Act and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), they were a staple of Anglo-American common law. They remain the rules with which a court would determine damage liability not only for the sale of goods, but also for the sale of real estate and securities.


Remedies For Breach Under The Uniform Commercial Code (Ucc Ni Okeru Keiyaku Furiko Ni Taisuru Kyusai), Whitmore Gray Jan 1969

Remedies For Breach Under The Uniform Commercial Code (Ucc Ni Okeru Keiyaku Furiko Ni Taisuru Kyusai), Whitmore Gray

Articles

A series of seminar lectures given by Whitmore Gray in Tokyo, Japan during October 1968. Six articles were subsequently published in “Kaigai Shojihomu” (The International Business Law Bulletin) between July 1969 and May 1970. The fifth installment discusses the difficulty of remedies and various methods of enforcement.


Limitation As To The Amount Of Liability For Loss Of Goods By Carriers, Edwin C. Goddard Jan 1915

Limitation As To The Amount Of Liability For Loss Of Goods By Carriers, Edwin C. Goddard

Articles

A carload of automobiles was shipped by express, under an express receipt limiting recovery to $50, unless a greater value was named and a greater carrying charge paid. The shipper knew of this stipulation, and deliberately chose the restricted liability so as to secure the lower rate. On a suit for loss of the automobiles, recovery was limited to $50. Geo. N. Pierce Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 189 Fed. 561, commented on in 10 MICH. L. REB. 317. The United States Supreme Court has just affirmed this decision, 35 Sup. Ct. 351.