Myers v. Drake

10 Watts 110
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 15, 1840·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence was offered in mitigation of damages, and properly rejected. There is a settled rule of compensation in every case like the present, which the unconscionableness of the bargain ought not to be suffered to disturb. There even was nothing unconscionable in making a bargain which the party supposed the other could not fulfil except at a sacrifice. The relation of buyer and seller is not a confidential one; and each of the parties is supposed to judge of his ability to perform his part for himself. A contract to perform an impossible thing may be void; but it never is impossible to procure and deliver an article of commerce which may be had in the market in some quarter of the [111] world. The evidence was offered, however, not to avoid the contract, but to reduce the damages for a breach of it; and the hardness of the bargain ought not to have that effect.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Myers v. Drake, 10 Watts 110 (Pa. 1840).

10 Watts 110 (Myers v. Drake) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moore v. Whitty
149 A. 93 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Rothermel v. Phillips
141 A. 241 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Holmes v. Cameron
110 A. 81 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Rockafellow v. Baker
41 Pa. 319 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1862)