L. Albert & Son v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

178 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1949)

Dawson, p. 98

 

Facts: The plaintiff agreed to buy four machines from the defendant.  The defendant delivered two, then delivered the other two over two years later.  The plaintiff sued for reliance damages.

 

Issue: To what damages is the plaintiff entitled?

 

Rule: When we don’t know what the value of performance would have been, we may assign the plaintiff reliance damages.

 

Analysis: Judge Learned Hand cites the first Restatement.

 

Conclusion: The case was remanded to find out how much the plaintiff would have lost if the contract had been performed.

 

Back to Reliance and Restitution

Back to Casebook Notes