Young v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
569 N.E.2d 1034 (1991)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. (Frank’s) (defendant) entered into a contract with William Young (plaintiff) to purchase 360 tons of pine boughs for $238,333. To fill this order, Young obtained cutting rights from various tree farms, repaired his machinery, and made 75 new hand tiers for bundling the boughs. In June, Frank’s reduced its order to 70 tons of pine boughs. Although Young sought additional buyers, all the buyers that he approached had already placed their orders for the fall cutting season with other sellers. When fall came, Young cut boughs sufficient to fill only the reduced order from Frank’s. Young sued Frank’s for breach of contract, alleging damages in the form of lost profits. Frank’s conceded the breach. The trial court told the jury that, to stop Young from recovering his lost profits, Frank’s had the burden of showing that Young’s decision to not cut all the boughs that Frank’s had originally ordered was commercially unreasonable. The jury awarded Young damages of $132,902. Frank’s appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals held that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury about the burden of proof for showing commercial reasonableness and put the burden on Frank’s. Young appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wright, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.
