11 Ill. App. 3d 918 (1973)
Richard Oloffson, doing business as Rich's Ag Service, entered into an agreement with Clarence Coomer on April 16, 1970, under which Coomer would sell and deliver 40,000 bushels of corn to Oloffson in October and December 1970.1 Oloffson described the deal as two separate contracts of 20,000 bushels each, priced at $1.12 3/4 per bushel for delivery by October 30 and $1.12 1/4 per bushel for delivery by December 15.2 Coomer confirmed the total quantity but stated he would deliver as much as possible by October 30 with the remainder by December 15.3
On June 3, 1970, Coomer notified Oloffson that he would not plant corn that season because of excessive wetness and instructed Oloffson to secure the corn from another source if Oloffson had commitments to third parties.4 The market price for corn for future delivery stood at $1.16 per bushel on that date.5 When Oloffson contacted Coomer again in September 1970 regarding the corn, Coomer repeated that delivery would not occur.6
Oloffson mailed confirmations of the April agreement to Coomer and had his attorney demand performance, but Coomer did not respond to either communication.7 Following the passage of both October 30 and December 15 without any deliveries, Oloffson obtained replacement corn by purchasing 20,000 bushels at $1.35 per bushel and 20,000 bushels at $1.49 per bushel.8
Oloffson brought suit against Coomer in the circuit court of Bureau County.9 After a trial without a jury, the court entered judgment for Oloffson in the amount of $1,500 plus costs.10 Oloffson appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District.11
Whether the measure of damages available to a buyer after a seller's repudiation is the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of repudiation?12
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, when a seller repudiates a contract for goods not yet due, the buyer may resort to remedies for breach under section 2-711 even if notified of intent to await performance, and damages for non-delivery are measured by the difference between contract price and market price at the time the buyer learned of the breach pursuant to sections 2-713 and 2-723.13
Yes. The court held that damages must be measured on the date of repudiation rather than the original delivery dates.14 Oloffson later covered at $1.35 and $1.49 per bushel after the scheduled dates, but the commercially reasonable time for awaiting performance had already expired, so the later prices could not be used.15
The measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date the seller repudiated the contract.16
Whether a buyer must obtain substitute goods within a commercially reasonable time after a seller's repudiation rather than awaiting the scheduled delivery dates?17
Under section 2-610 of the Uniform Commercial Code, an aggrieved buyer may await performance for a commercially reasonable time or immediately resort to breach remedies, but this right is limited by the obligation of good faith under sections 2-103(1)(b) and 1-203, and a usage of trade known only to the buyer may require prompt action to avoid extending the period unreasonably.18
Yes. Coomer's June 3 statement was clear, cover was immediately available in the organized grain market, and Oloffson failed to disclose the trade usage permitting cancellation upon payment of the price difference, which the trial court found violated good faith.19 Therefore Oloffson could not wait until October or December to measure damages or cover.20
A buyer must obtain substitute goods or otherwise act within a commercially reasonable time after repudiation rather than awaiting the original delivery dates.21