Trinidad Bean & Elevator Co. v. Frosh
Nebraska Court of Appeals
494 N.W.2d 347 (1992)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In April 1988, Trinidad Bean & Elevator Company (Trinidad) (plaintiff) agreed to buy a specified quantity of navy beans from Elmo Frosh (defendant) upon completion of Frosh’s harvest of the 1988 crop. The parties’ written contract provided for two payment options. The first option was payment in full in January 1989 at $16.25 per unit. The second option was priced at $16 per unit, half paid in December 1988 and half at harvest completion. According to Frosh, on May 1, 1988, he repudiated by telling Trinidad to “tear up the contract.” The contract and market prices of navy beans were the same at that time. By early September 1988, Frosh had taken other actions to confirm his contract repudiation. In mid-October 1988, the harvest was complete, and Frosh did not deliver any beans. Due to drought, the price of navy beans had gone from $16 in April to $32 in early September to $36 in late September. Trinidad did not attempt to purchase substitute goods or cover, but instead sued Frosh for damages. A trial ensued, and the court instructed the jury that the measure of damages was the price of the beans at the time of performance (harvest time) less the contract price and that Frosh might be entitled to the defense of mitigation of damages if Trinidad failed to cover within a commercially reasonable time after repudiation. The jury returned a general verdict for Frosh. Trinidad appealed, arguing that the court erred in instructing the jury on mitigation of damages. The court had to decide the proper measure of a buyer’s damages under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-713(1).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Connolly, 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.