Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Warner Co.

576 F.2d 524 (3rd Cir.1978)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Warner Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

576 F.2d 524 (3rd Cir.1978)

Play video

Facts

S.J. Groves & Sons Co. (Groves) (plaintiff) was awarded a subcontract for the placement of a bridge’s concrete decks and parapets. The subcontract was a portion of a larger contract with the state of Pennsylvania for the construction of the bridge. Groves contracted with Warner Co. (Warner) (defendant) for the delivery of ready-mixed concrete. That contract required Warner to supply approximately 35,000 cubic yards of ready-mixed concrete at a specific rate at specific times designated by Groves. Warner frequently failed to make deliveries in compliance with the contract, which caused Groves to have to adjust the overall plan for construction. The adjustments made by Groves resulted in additional costs including overtime labor. In 1971, Groves considered alternative sources of concrete. The only other company in the area, Trap Rock Company (Trap Rock) was not yet certified to do work for the state. Trap Rock was also going to charge more than Warner for the same product. Warner continually gave assurances that it would deliver product in accordance with the contract. However, Warner’s performance of the contractual obligations continued to be erratic. In June 1972, the state halted construction to address Warner's performance issues. Construction was allowed to recommence based on renewed assurances from Warner that performance would improve. Warner did improve performance under the contract but only for about a month. In July 1972, Trap Rock became certified by the state and agreed to match Warner's price. Groves decided to continue contracting with Warner through completion of the contract in October 1972. Groves then sued Warner, seeking damages for the losses caused by Warner’s failure to perform as specified in the contract. The district court entered a judgment for Groves but limited the recovery to damages incurred up to July 11, 1972. The district court ruled that Groves should have mitigated the damages by contracting with Trap Rock by July 12, 1972. Groves appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Weis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership