Proper elements of damages.

- An award representing market-price contract-price differential as well as consequential damages in form of lost resale profits simply combined in category "loss of profits" are proper elements of damages. Fratelli Gardino v. Caribbean Lumber Co., 447 F. Supp. 1337 (S.D. Ga. 1978), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, Fratelli Gardino v. Caribbean Lumber Co., 587 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1979).

Damages not speculative.

- In a suit brought by a buyer after an oral contract for the sale of a horse fell through, damages were not speculative; there was evidence that the seller had an offer of $50,000 for the horse on the same day that the seller agreed to sell the horse to the buyer for $35,000, and that the horse was eventually sold to another party for over $200,000. Rowland v. Scarborough Farms, LLC, 285 Ga. App. 831, 648 S.E.2d 151 (2007).

Delivery of inferior product.

- Buyer of a custom machine presented sufficient evidence of the market price of a similar, though less desirable, machine, and evidence of expenses incurred due to the seller's failure to deliver the machine as ordered and was entitled to damages. Latex Equip. Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Apache Mills, Inc., 225 Ga. App. 516, 484 S.E.2d 274 (1997).

Insufficient proof of lost profits.

- Though a subcontractor successfully proved a breach of contract claim against a supplier, the damages award in the amount of $160,000 was reversed on appeal as the subcontractor failed to present any evidence of anticipated expenses due to the loss of a construction project arising from the breach, and therefore the subcontractor's proof of lost profits was insufficient as a matter of law and required a new trial; further, because the damages award was reversed, the appellate court also reversed the award of attorney fees to the subcontractor since the award of attorney fees was contingent upon the damages award on the breach of contract claim. Bldg. Materials Wholesale, Inc. v. Triad Drywall, LLC, 287 Ga. App. 772, 653 S.E.2d 115 (2007).

Breach of contract to sell vehicle.

- In an action arising from an alleged breach of a contract to sell a vehicle brought by a buyer against a car dealer, because a genuine issue of material fact remained over the amount of damages that should be awarded, as the evidence presented a dispute as to the market price of the vehicle at the time of the breach, and the dealer's owner gave conflicting deposition testimony regarding the value of the vehicle, summary judgment was unwarranted. Jones v. Baran Co., LLC, 290 Ga. App. 578, 660 S.E.2d 420 (2008).

Cited in Swift Textiles, Inc. v. Lawson, 135 Ga. App. 799, 219 S.E.2d 167 (1975); Anderson v. Gold Kist, Inc., 138 Ga. App. 19, 225 S.E.2d 487 (1976); Gold Kist, Inc. v. Stokes, 138 Ga. App. 482, 226 S.E.2d 268 (1976); Fratelli Gardino v. Caribbean Lumber Co., 587 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1979); Bigelow-Sanford, Inc. v. Gunny Corp., 649 F.2d 1060 (5th Cir. 1981).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 67A Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 1290-1296.

6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:747.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-713.

ALR.

- Loss of anticipated profits as damages for breach of seller's contract as to machine for buyer's use, 32 A.L.R. 120.

Inability of a seller of a commodity manufactured or produced by a third person to obtain the same from the latter as a defense to an action by the buyer for breach of the contract, 80 A.L.R. 1177.

Rate of exchange to be taken into account in assessing damages for breach of contract or nonpayment of money obligation payable in foreign currency, 105 A.L.R. 640.

Necessity that buyer, relying on market price as measure of damages for seller's breach of sale contract, show that goods in question were available for market at price shown, 20 A.L.R.2d 819.

Allegation of buyer's ability and willingness to perform, in action for damages for failure to deliver goods purchased, 94 A.L.R.2d 1215.

Measure and elements of buyer's recovery upon revocation of acceptance of goods under UCC § 2-608(1), 65 A.L.R.3d 388.

Failure to deliver ordered merchandise to customer on date promised as unfair or deceptive trade practice, 7 A.L.R.4th 1257.