Goldstein v. Stainless Processing Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
465 F.2d 392 (1972)

- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Morris Goldstein (plaintiff) contracted to buy 20,000 pounds of nickel cathodes from Stainless Processing Co. (Stainless) (defendant). During their negotiations, Goldstein and Stainless agreed that Goldstein would send Stainless a check for $20,000 as a good-faith deposit. Stainless was not supposed to cash the check. Rather, Stainless was merely supposed to hold the check until Goldstein had approved the nickel cathodes and made full payment upon delivery. Goldstein mailed the check to Stainless. At the same time, however, Goldstein had his bank stop payment on the check. When Stainless received Goldstein’s check, rather than holding it as promised, Stainless tried to deposit it. After learning from the bank that payment on the check had been stopped, Stainless contacted Goldstein to cancel the contract. By that time, the price of nickel had gone up. Goldstein bought the nickel cathodes from someone else, paying $23,000 more than the Goldstein-Stainless contract price. Goldstein then sued Stainless to recover this additional expense. The trial court ruled in favor of Stainless. Goldstein appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.