Acme Mills & Elevator Co. v. Johnson Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A seller breached a contract to sell wheat. Because the market price at the time of delivery had fallen below the contract price, the court held the buyer suffered no damages and could not recover the seller’s profits from an earlier resale to a third party.
Legal Significance: This case affirms the traditional rule for calculating expectation damages in a breach of a sales contract: the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time and place designated for performance, not at the time of repudiation.
Acme Mills & Elevator Co. v. Johnson Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
On April 26, 1909, J. C. Johnson (seller) contracted to sell 2,000 bushels of wheat to Acme Mills & Elevator Co. (buyer) for $1.03 per bushel. The contract specified delivery was to be made “from thresher 1909.” The buyer provided sacks for the delivery. Around July 14, 1909, while the market price was high, the seller breached the contract by selling his wheat to a third party for $1.16 per bushel. The seller did not complete his threshing until July 29, 1909, which the court identified as the time for performance under the contract. By that date, the market price for wheat had dropped to approximately $1.00 per bushel, which was below the contract price. The buyer sued for damages, arguing the seller was estopped from using the lower market price at the time of performance and that damages should be based on the profitable resale price.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When a seller breaches a contract for the sale of goods by reselling them to a third party before the performance date, is the buyer’s measure of damages based on the seller’s resale profit or on the market price at the time and place originally set for delivery?
The buyer is not entitled to damages because the market price at Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
When a seller breaches a contract for the sale of goods by reselling them to a third party before the performance date, is the buyer’s measure of damages based on the seller’s resale profit or on the market price at the time and place originally set for delivery?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear application of the rule that damages for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
In contracts for the delivery of personal property at a fixed time Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Du
Legal Analysis
The court strictly applied the established rule for calculating expectation damages in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The measure of damages for a seller’s breach is the market