Seller\u27s Damages Following Resale Under Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code

The seller\u27s right to resell contracted-for goods following a breach by the buyer is set forth in section 2-706 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Code). That section also contains a statement of the conditions placed upon the exercise of that right and provides the measure of recovery if the resale is made in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner : [T]he seller may recover the difference between the resale price and the contract price together with any incidental damages allowed under the provisions of this Article (Section 2-710), but less expenses saved in consequence of the buyer\u27s breach. In most of the cases in which the seller has resold, this section can be applied without difficulty. There are, however, some situations in which judicial interpretation will be needed in order to reach a desired result. The purpose of this article is to examine the measure of damages provided in section 2-706 as applied both to the usual and to the not-so-usual cases

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DENIED BY MICHIGAN\u27S ONE-MAN GRAND JURY\u27\u27

Petitioner was summoned to appear as a witness before one of Oakland County\u27s judges who was then acting in the capacity of one-man grand juror. This proceeding was attended only by petitioner, the judge grand juror, and two other circuit judges acting as advisers to the latter. The purpose was to investigate alleged misconduct on the part of law-enforcing officials through the acceptance of bribes in the form of sales of worthless bonds on pin-ball machines. Petitioner admitted purchasing these bonds but could. not recall just what he had done with them when they had expired. Concluding that the petitioner\u27s answers were evasive and that his story did not jell the judge immediately charged petitioner with contempt, convicted him, and sentenced him to jail-all without leaving the room. With only a part of the testimony on record the Supreme Court of Michigan denied the petitioner\u27s motion for habeas corpus by an evenly divided court. On certiorari, held, reversed, two justices dissenting. Such a conviction is unconstitutional as a denial of due process. In re William Oliver, (U.S. 1948) 68 S.Ct. 499

Restitution on Default and Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code

Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, entitled Sales, contains an entire chapter (Part 7) devoted to remedies. This chapter reveals two basic philosophies. First, the draftsmen were concerned with developing a pattern of recovery following default by one of the parties, even though default is but one reason for the nonperformance of promises. Second, the remedies which are codified emphasize the expectation interest of the nondefaulting party and almost ignore any development of the restitution interest. This emphasis upon the expectation interest singles out only one judicial approach by which the economic interests of the parties can be readjusted following a break-down in contractual relationships. On many occasions restitution recoveries represent a more equitable method of treating these interests.The purpose of this article is to collect and to examine those sections of article 2 of the Code which provide lawyers and judges an opportunity to protect a party\u27s restitution interest following a default in a contract for the sale of goods