This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Sprague (P) entered into a contract with Sumitomo (D) for the sale of logs. Because of difficulties with its sawmill, D canceled the contract. Prior to receiving that cancellation of the contract P sued D for breach of contract. D filed its answer alleging that P had an affirmative duty to mitigate damages. P mitigated his damages by selling the timber to five different purchasers at private sales. At trial, P sought to recover the difference between the contract price and the resale price along with incidental damages. D claimed mutual rescission and also asserted that D failed to proceed as required under 2-702. The jury found the contract price was $197,204 and the resale price was $144,924 with the net contractual damages as $52,280. The jury also found that P sustained incidental damages of $216,498. Those included $39,674 for refinancing, $5,612 for extra transportation, $9,121 for the loss of revenue not covered by the contract, $171,200 the loss of 11 weeks of logging time, and $2,115 for the cost of moving tower. D appealed. D contends that P did not give the requisite notice of intention to resell the goods under 2-706(3) and that P is not entitled to recover the difference in the contract and resale prices.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.