Missouri Furnace Co. v. Cochran Case Brief

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania1881Docket #65519452
8 F. 463 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 Contracts Remedies Commercial Law

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

4 min read

tl;dr: A seller breached an installment contract to deliver coke. The buyer immediately secured a new long-term contract at a high price. The court ruled damages are measured by the market price at the time each delivery was due, not by the buyer’s speculative replacement contract.

Legal Significance: Establishes the rule for calculating damages in an anticipatory repudiation of an installment contract: damages are measured by the market price at the time each installment was due, not by the cost of a forward “cover” contract made at the time of repudiation.

Missouri Furnace Co. v. Cochran 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

Missouri Furnace Co. (“plaintiff”) entered into a contract with John M. Cochran (“defendant”) for the delivery of 36,621 tons of coke throughout 1880 at a fixed price of $1.20 per ton, to be delivered in daily installments. On February 13, 1880, after partial performance, Cochran notified the plaintiff that he was rescinding the contract and would make no further deliveries, constituting an anticipatory repudiation. At that time, the coke market was extraordinarily high and volatile. On February 27, 1880, the plaintiff entered into a new forward contract with a third party for the remaining balance of coke for the rest of the year, but at a price of $4.00 per ton, which was the prevailing market rate for such a long-term contract. Subsequently, the market price for coke dropped significantly, falling to $1.30 per ton by mid-May. The plaintiff sought damages based on the difference between its original contract price with Cochran and the higher price of its new replacement contract.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: In a breach of an installment contract for the sale of goods via anticipatory repudiation, is the measure of damages the difference between the contract price and the price of a new forward “cover” contract secured at the time of repudiation, or the sum of the differences between the contract price and the market price at the time each installment was due?

The measure of damages is the sum of the differences between the 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 dolo

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

In a breach of an installment contract for the sale of goods via anticipatory repudiation, is the measure of damages the difference between the contract price and the price of a new forward “cover” contract secured at the time of repudiation, or the sum of the differences between the contract price and the market price at the time each installment was due?

Conclusion

This case solidifies the traditional rule for calculating damages in anticipatory repudiation 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

Legal Rule

When a contract for the sale of goods deliverable in installments is 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.

Legal Analysis

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that its damages should be based 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 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 eiu

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Damages for repudiation of an installment contract are measured by the
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 pariat

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial