Moore v. United States
Headline: Coal supplier's limited victory: Court reversed lower court and awarded $1,120.87 for 366 refused tons, but denied demurrage claims tied to Honolulu harbor delays, leaving shippers responsible for delivery to the wharf.
Holding: The Court held the United States must pay $1,120.87 for refusing to accept 366 tons—too large a shortfall from "about 5,000 tons"—but is not liable for demurrage from Honolulu harbor conditions.
- Shippers bear risk for harbor congestion when contracts require delivery at the wharf.
- "About" in a contract does not excuse large quantity shortfalls.
- Buyers who refuse substantial tendered amounts may owe damages.
Summary
Background
A San Francisco general commission merchant and shipper contracted with the Army Quartermaster’s office to deliver thousands of tons of Australian steam coal to Honolulu wharves in 1898. The contracts required delivery “at the wharf” or “on wharf as customary.” The ships Euterpe, Harvester, and General Gordon arrived between July and August and were delayed by crowded docks and a harbormaster who assigned berths in arrival order. The shipper paid demurrage to shipowners (including $1,053.36 claimed in his suit) and later bought 366 tons from another vessel, tendered it to the United States, and sold it after the government refused it, suffering a $1,120.87 loss.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the United States had to furnish a berth or only to receive coal at the wharf. It found the written contracts plainly required delivery at the wharf, and local customs or San Francisco charter-party usages could not change the contracts’ terms. Because the government was not shown to be at fault and had no duty to assign berths or provide lighters, the Court upheld denial of demurrage. But it also held that “about 5,000 tons” did not permit so large a shortfall; refusal to accept the 366 tons was wrongful. The Court reversed the Court of Claims on that point and directed judgment for $1,120.87. Justice Holmes concurred in the result.
Real world impact
The ruling makes sellers who promise delivery “at the wharf” bear risks of local harbor congestion unless the buyer agrees otherwise. It also clarifies that vague quantity terms like “about” do not excuse substantial shortages, so buyers may owe damages for refused deliveries. The decision resolved the money claim in the shipper’s favor but left the demurrage reimbursement claim against the United States denied.
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?