Sales and Leases | 252
reasonable time, she cannot recover any additional consequential damages attributable to that delay. Even here, of course, the buyer may recover damages that her own delay did not cause. [Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350, cmts. f, g; Manouchehri v. Heim , 941 P.2d 978 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997).] Example : A physician contracted to purchase an x-ray machine from a broker. The physician made clear that he (1) expected to make a profit on each x-ray the machine produced and (2) needed a machine with a specific power rating. The machine the broker ultimately delivered had a power rating lower than the contract specifications and too low for the physician to profitably produce x-rays. The broker assured the physician that repairs would be forthcoming. Reasonably relying on these assurances, the physician waited months before obtaining a replacement machine or filing suit. On similar facts, a state appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that the physician did not wait for longer than a reasonable time to mitigate damages. Considering the broker’s assurances, the physician’s delay was reasonable in the circumstances. [ See Manouchehri v. Heim , 941 P.2d 978 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997).] 2) Reasonable Efforts to Mitigate Losses The buyer need only make reasonable efforts to mitigate loss (unless, of course, those efforts would be futile). The buyer need not make extraordinary efforts. For instance, the buyer does not have to make risky deals, incur disproportionate or unreasonable expense and inconvenience, incur expenditures beyond the buyer’s means, disrupt her business, or incur embarrassment or humiliation. Normally, the buyer must stop performance upon learning of the breach. In rare instances, though, it may be reasonable for the buyer to complete performance rather than stopping. [Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350, cmt. g; Simeone v. First Bank N.A. , 73 F.3d 184 (8th Cir. 1996).] Example : A collector contracted to purchase a collection of rare automobiles and parts from a dealer for $300,000. The dealer repudiated the contract and, instead, sold the items to a broker for $500,000. A short time later, the broker sold the cars and parts at auction for $1,000,000. The collector did not try to buy the cars and parts or otherwise effectuate cover. In the collector’s ensuing lawsuit against the dealer, the dealer contended that the collector was not entitled to consequential damages, because he could have bought the items at auction. On similar facts, the Eighth Circuit rejected this argument. It was unreasonable to expect the collector to pay more than double the contract price for the items, and there was no proof that the
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker