510 CONTRACT TO DELIVER THRASHING MACHINE. 



gave the plaintiff a verdict, and as damages they gave £12 for the price 

 of the fire-box paid by the pLaintiff to the defendant, £8 for the price of 

 a fire-box bought by the plaintiff instead of the insufficient one sup- 

 plied by the defendant, and £20 for the damages and costs which the 

 plaintiff had been obliged to pay to Sheaf. Upon a rule to reduce the 

 damages, it was held that as the damages and costs paid by the plaintiff 

 to Sheaf could not have been in contemplation of the parties at the time 

 of the contract, they could not be recovered from the defendant. And 

 pel' Curiam: "The action being brought to recover the sum of £12, 

 it would be a monstrous conclusion to arrive at, that the breach of the 

 contract for not furnishing the fire-box for £12 did give rise to the 

 additional damage of £20." 



In Smeed v. Foord, which was cm action m a contract to setl and 

 deliver a thrashing macMne, the plaintiff' had inquired of the defendant, 

 who was also a farmer and an agent for the sale of thrashing machines, 

 when he could have a thrashing machine of a certain power delivered. 

 A correspondence took place, in which the defendant said he could let 

 the plaintiff have one in a month, and afterwards in three weeks, and 

 plaintiff" then wrote — " I will take a seven-horse engine, with the latest 

 improvements, if you can let me have it in three weeks ; " to which the 

 defendant replied that he would let plaintiff have the machine at the 

 time named. It was further intimated to defendant, that if the 

 machine was not delivered by the 14th of August, plaintiff would be 

 under the necessity of hiring one. The defendant did not deliver the 

 machine as promised, and the plaintiff, expecting from day to day from 

 defendant's promises that it would be delivered, abstained from hiring 

 one, when heavy rain coming his corn was damaged to a very consider- 

 able extent, and the jury had given him damages for deterioration in the 

 value of corn and straw, for expenses of carting and stacking, for ex- 

 penses of kiln-drying, and for loss in consequence of the fall in the 

 market price. 



A rule nisi having been obtained to enter a nonsuit or to reduce the 

 damages, the verdict was ordered to stand for £300. And per Lord 

 Campbell C.J. : " Here was an express contract to deliver the machine 

 on the 14th of August ; it was not delivered on that day, and not 

 until long after, and the question is whether, under the circumstances, 

 the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the damage he has admittedly 

 sustained. We must refer to the case of Iladley v. Ba.rendate, where 

 the rule on this subject is correctly laid down ; and that rule is, that 

 the plaintiff' under such circumstances as these is entitled to recover 

 either such damages as may fairly and reasonably be considered as 

 arising naturally, and in tlie usual course of things, from sucli breach 



