Warning

Info

Table of Contents
UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.

(1929)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 35 F.2d 301

tl;dr:

Plaintiff constructed a bridge it agreed to construct for Defendant even after Defendant explicitly told Plaintiff that the deal was off. Then Plaintiff sued for the costs it incurred from the construction.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the 1929 case Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided on a contract dispute involving a duty to mitigate damages. Luten Bridge Co. (plaintiff) agreed to build a bridge for Rockingham County (defendant) in North Carolina at a cost of $18,301.07. After spending about $1,900 on labor and materials, the county told Luten Bridge to stop work, but the company finished the bridge anyway. The company sued for the full contract price, and the trial court agreed. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, stating that Luten Bridge should have mitigated damages by stopping work when told to do so.

The court explained that the rule in such situations is that the non-breaching party should not continue to perform after the other party has repudiated the contract. The court rejected Luten Bridge's claim under section 274 of the Restatement of Contracts, as it only applies when performance has not begun. Instead, the court determined that $4,000 was the appropriate amount of damages.

This case demonstrates the concept of a duty to mitigate damages in a contract dispute. When one party breaches a contract, the other must take reasonable steps to minimize their loss, including stopping performance if necessary.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingRockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. case brief facts & holding

Facts:Defendant voted to approve a contract with Plaintiff whereby a...

Holding:Reversed and remanded. After Plaintiff receives notice of breach, Plaintiff...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: PARKER, Circuit Judge.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Luten Bridge Company sued Rockingham County for breach of contract in the construction of a bridge. The county admits to the breach but argues that they gave notice of cancellation before construction began and should only be liable for damages up to that point. However, the lower court erred in allowing an answer admitting liability to be introduced as evidence and instructing a verdict for the full amount of the claim. The county has appealed the judgment. The case also involves a challenge to the validity of the appointment of a new member to the board of commissioners who rescinded the contract. The answer filed by individual commissioners was not admissible as evidence against the county on the trial of the cause because it was not authorized by the county. The presence of a de facto commissioner, Hampton, at meetings of the board with the other two commissioners constituted a quorum and gave validity to its proceedings. The clerk of the superior court of the county has the power to appoint the successor of a member of the board of county commissioners. Once accepted, the officer cannot withdraw the resignation. If Pruitt's resignation was accepted by the clerk before he attempted to withdraw it, the appointment of Hampton was valid. Regardless of the validity of Hampton's appointment, he should be considered a de facto officer, and any action taken by him, Martin, and Barber in meetings regularly held is binding upon the county and those dealing with it. However, Section 3204 of the Consolidated Statutes provides that any person admitted and sworn into office by the proper authority is deemed to hold the office lawfully until a judicial sentence ousts them or their admission is declared void through due process of law.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.

Chat for Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.
brief-247
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.