Lewis signed a contract for the rights to all timber located on Nine-Mile Mine agreeing to pay $70 per thousand board feet ($70/mbf). As he began work, Nine-Mile became convinced that Lewis lacked sufficient equipment to do the job well and forbade him from entering the land. Lewis sued. Nine-Mile moved for summary judgment. The mine offered proof that the market value of the timber was exactly $70/mbf for which Lewis had no contradicting evidence. The court granted summary judgment. Why?

Question

Kirsten Olsen

Business

5 December, 00:29

Lewis signed a contract for the rights to all timber located on Nine-Mile Mine agreeing to pay $70 per thousand board feet ($70/mbf). As he began work, Nine-Mile became convinced that Lewis lacked sufficient equipment to do the job well and forbade him from entering the land. Lewis sued. Nine-Mile moved for summary judgment. The mine offered proof that the market value of the timber was exactly $70/mbf for which Lewis had no contradicting evidence. The court granted summary judgment. Why?

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Deon Galloway · Answer 1

When a supplier, vendor or any other type of seller breaches a contract, the court will generally determine the compensation for damages according to the difference between the selling price and the market price. In this case, if the selling price of wood from Nine-Mile mine was equal to the market price, there is no damage suffered by the buyer (Lewis). The buyer can claim certain damages related to time wasted and other minor issues, but the real issue here is that Lewis can actually save money by not purchasing that wood.

All Lewis needs to do is go somewhere else and purchase the wood directly without spending any money in logging.