Question

22-4 The Right to Recover Damages

Woodridge USA Properties LP, bought eighty-seven commercial truck trailers from Southeast Trailer Mart, Inc. (STM). Gerald McCarty, an independent sales agent who arranged the deal, showed Woodridge the document of title. They did not indicate that Woodridge was the buyer. Woodridge asked McCarty to sell the trailers, and within three months they were sold, but McCarty did not give the proceeds to Woodridge. Woodridge without mentioning the title documents, asked STM to refund the contract price. STM refused. Does Woodridge have a right to recover damages from STM? Explain. (See Remedies of the Buyer or Lessee)

Answer this using the IRAC writing Format

I-Describe the issue at hand (the question being asked)

R-Describe the rule that is applicable in this situation

A-Apply the rule to the facts of yor situation

C-Draw a conclusion

Answer 1

The issue here is “the document of title” not indicating Woodridge as buyer. Taking undue advantage of this, Gerald McCarty refused to give the amount to Woodridge, which was proceed from selling the truck trailers purchased by Woodridge from Southeast Trailer Mart, Inc. This resulted in a loss to Woodridge.

In the given scenario, “Mitigating the loss” rule of the right to recover damages is applicable. The rule clearly states that the party which claims damage must make necessary arrangements to keep its loss at minimum. In the given scenario, Woodridge didn’t seem to follow this as the document of title was shown to it, wherein Woodridge was not mentioned as buyer. Despite that, it didn’t do anything to mitigate the risk and it’s clearly a failure to follow the above stated rule.

Since Woodridge didn’t take necessary steps to mitigate the risk of loss, it doesn’t qualify to claim any damages. Southeast Trailer Mart, Inc. isn’t liable for any damages occurred to Woodridge. Another aspect of this case is that Woodridge didn’t show the document of title while asking a refund from STM. This is withholding of information that again a fault on Woodridge’s side.

Woodridge do not have any right to recover the damages occurred out of the given scenario, since it didn’t attentively perform its own responsibilities to safeguard itself from any losses.