L. Albert & Son v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

Nature of the Case

This lawsuit involved a dispute over the delivery of machines.

Facts

L. Albert & Son (P) agreed to sell and deliver to Armstrong Rubber (D) four refiners that were designed to recondition old rubber. The contract of sale was dated December, 1942. Albert delivered two of the four machines in August, 1943 and delivered the remainder two years later. Because of the delay in delivery of the other two Armstrong refused to accept all four in October, 1945. The court gave judgment to Albert for the value of the equipment delivered. Buyer appealed for the expenses it incurred in reliance upon Albert’s promise.

Issue

Does a promissor’s default on performance make him a guarantor and insurer of the promisee’s venture?

Holding and Rule of Law

No. A promissor’s default on performance does not make him a guarantor and insurer of the promisee’s venture.

However, the promisee may recover his outlay in preparation for the performance subject to the privilege of the promissor to reduce it by as much as he can show that the promisee would have lost if the contract had been performed. We will also not put a plaintiff in a better position than he would have occupied had the contract been fully performed. The cost of the pad ($3,000) for the machines should be allowed as an offset as this was performed in anticipation of Albert’s delivery of the machines, and Albert may deduct from that sum any loss upon the contract had the machines been shipped before May 1, 1945.

Disposition

Contract modified.