United States v. Burton Coal Co.
Headline: Coal-supply contract ruling affirms seller can collect market-loss damages after the United States refused deliveries, allowing the coal seller to recover the price–market difference instead of only its lost profits.
Holding: The Court ruled that when the United States refused to accept contracted coal deliveries, the seller may recover the difference between the contract price and the market value at delivery times and places, not merely lost profits.
- Allows sellers to claim market-loss damages when buyers refuse contracted commodity deliveries.
- Limits recovery to difference between contract price and market value, not seller’s production costs or profits.
- Holds government liable for market damages when it breaches commodity purchase contracts.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved the United States buying coal for army posts in the Chicago area and a private coal selling company that agreed to deliver 150,000 tons at $6.75 per ton from named Illinois mines. The seller did not own the mines but had contracts and financial arrangements with the mine operators. The seller delivered 53,146 tons as required, but the Government refused to accept or pay for the remaining 96,854 tons that had not been delivered.
Reasoning
The central question was how much the seller could recover after the buyer refused deliveries: the seller’s lost profits or the difference between the contract price and market value at the delivery times and places. The Court held that when a buyer wrongfully refuses to accept goods, the seller may recover the contract price minus the market value at the times and places of delivery. The Court explained the seller could have obtained coal on the market to meet the contract, so the seller’s costs or profits from mining arrangements were not the proper measure of damages. The lower court’s award, based on the price–market difference, was affirmed.
Real world impact
The decision means sellers in commodity sales can recover the price–market difference if a buyer refuses delivery, even when the seller does not own the production source. The ruling focuses damages on the market loss caused by breach, not on the seller’s production costs or expected profit.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?