Hector
Martinez & Co. v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co.
606 F.2d 106 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied,
446 U.S. 982 (1980).
Facts: The defendant delivered a dragline
a month late. The plaintiff sued for the
fair rental value of the dragline for the period it was delayed. The trial court dismissed the claim.
Issue: Can the plaintiff recover
for the rental cost of the dragline?
Rule: Hadley requires
notice only when it is not obvious that a delayed item has use value.
Analysis: The dragline has use value.
It was being purchased to be used, not
to be sold. It is foreseeable that if
its delivery is delayed, the plaintiff will have to rent a replacement. Furthermore, even though it was also a
possibility that the plaintiff was purchasing the dragline to sell it, the plaintiff
need not prove that their injury was “the most foreseeable of all
possible harms”.
Conclusion: The trial court’s decision
was reversed. It is suggested that the defendant
was liable to the plaintiff for the rental cost of the dragline for the period
of the delay.
Back to Limitations on Expectation
Damages