Walker v. Hayes

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Walker v. Hayes

120 A.2d 140, 100 N.H. 90, 1956 N.H. LEXIS 4

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedFebruary 7, 1956

Docket4448

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 A.2d 140 (Walker v. Hayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. Hayes, 120 A.2d 140, 100 N.H. 90, 1956 N.H. LEXIS 4 (N.H. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Blandin, J.

This is an alternative contract (Barker v. Jones, 8 N. H. 413; Restatement, Contracts, ss. 325c, 344 illustrations 1, 2), wherein the defendant has the option to satisfy her obligation by either cash or stock. Under this contract the plaintiff had no right to demand performance of a particular alternative. Restatement, Contracts, s. 325, comment e. As a result his damages are measured by “the alternative that will result in the smallest recovery.” Id., s. 344; 5 Williston, Contracts, 3920-3922. However, the plaintiff argues that when the defendant failed to elect on or before April 5, 1953, this gave him the option of choosing, as he has endeavored to do, between the alternatives. The few cases which support such a rule have been criticized as lacking a sound basis (5 Corbin on Contracts, ss. 1079, 1081; Williston, supra, 3922), and are contrary to our well established law that the parties’ intention controls. Smart v. Hernandez, 95 N. H. 492, 496. There *92 is no indication in the agreement before us that the parties meant to give the plaintiff the option to choose the alternative and his contention is rejected.

Indisputably, the smallest recovery is the stock which the plaintiff already has, and since there is no claim that the delay in transferring the shares caused him any damage, the order is

Judgment for the defendant.

All concurred.

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

Blandin, J.

This is an alternative contract (Barker v. Jones, 8 N. H. 413; Restatement, Contracts, ss. 325c, 344 illustrations 1, 2), wherein the defendant has the option to satisfy her obligation by either cash or stock. Under this contract the plaintiff had no right to demand performance of a particular alternative. Restatement, Contracts, s. 325, comment e. As a result his damages are measured by “the alternative that will result in the smallest recovery.” Id., s. 344; 5 Williston, Contracts, 3920-3922. However, the plaintiff argues that when the defendant failed to elect on or before April 5, 1953, this gave him the option of choosing, as he has endeavored to do, between the alternatives. The few cases which support such a rule have been criticized as lacking a sound basis (5 Corbin on Contracts, ss. 1079, 1081; Williston, supra, 3922), and are contrary to our well established law that the parties’ intention controls. Smart v. Hernandez, 95 N. H. 492, 496. There *92 is no indication in the agreement before us that the parties meant to give the plaintiff the option to choose the alternative and his contention is rejected.

Indisputably, the smallest recovery is the stock which the plaintiff already has, and since there is no claim that the delay in transferring the shares caused him any damage, the order is

Judgment for the defendant.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.2d 140, 100 N.H. 90, 1956 N.H. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-hayes-nh-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack