...CARDOZO, JJ., dissenting. 287 US Fourth. The respondents contend that the District Court erred in charging that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of the breach, instead of the market prices at the times for delivery;...

...Appeal held that the agents had committed a broach of duty in not communicating the tenant's offer and that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the enhanced price offered by the tenant, but that the agents were entitled to commission. Keppel v....

...steamship company could recover damages from the colliery company for the failure to deliver the coal, and that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market price on May 24, which must be taken to have been thu date of the failure to deliver. SANON...

...deposit and the expenses of investigating the title, but also damages for the loss of his bargain, and that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the value at the time when the contract was broken. Again, in Day v. Singleton (81 LT Rep. 306; (1899)...

...and if it was not exercised there was an end of the matter. Then it was said by the colliery company that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market price at the date of the commencement of the strike. The rule as to the measure of damages...

...undelivered glass for the best obtainable prices, and upon which said court held, on the last appeal, that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the price at which the glass was re-sold, was not in the record when the case was before the Appellate...

...some months subsequently resold the goods, it was held that the title had not passed to the buyer, and that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods at the time the buyer refused to receive them, and not the difference...

...repudiation by him, and that the defendant had repudiated the contract and was liable in damages. Held, also, that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date on which the contract should have been performed. LEUXON v. SOABLETT &...

...some months subsequently resold the goods, it was held that the title had not passed to the buyer, and that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods at the time the buyer refused to receive them, and not the difference...

...repudiation by him, and that the defendant had repudiated the contract and was liable in damages. Held, also, that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date on which the contract should have been performed. SPECIAL CASE. An action...