Tongish v. Thomas
Kansas Supreme Court
251 Kan. 728, 840 P.2d 471 (1992)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Decatur Cooperative Association (the co-op) (plaintiff) contracted with farmer Denis Tongish (defendant) to purchase all the sunflower seeds that Tongish grew over a period of time. Under a separate contract, the co-op would deliver Tongish’s seeds to a third party and would receive a handling charge based on the seed volume delivered. This handling charge was the co-op’s only anticipated profit from Tongish’s contract. Tongish delivered the first seed installment to the co-op. Then the seeds’ market price doubled. Instead of selling his seeds to the co-op, Tongish sold his remaining seeds to Danny Thomas at the newly doubled price. Tongish had to sue Thomas to get his full payment. The co-op intervened in that lawsuit and filed a claim against Tongish for breach of contract. The trial court ruled that Tongish had breached the co-op contract. Consistent with Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 1-106, the court awarded the co-op its expectation damages, which were its lost $455 of handling-charge profits. The co-op appealed, arguing that the damages should be calculated under UCC § 2-713 as the difference between the market price paid by Thomas and the price in the co-op contract. This section would essentially make Tongish disgorge the gain he made from breaching the co-op contract, which was $5,100. The appellate court ordered the trial court to recalculate the damages under UCC § 2-713. Tongish appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McFarland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.