The application of the general principle of compensation can be summed up by the same formula where the title has not passed and the buyer is the plaintiff as in the case where the seller is the plaintiff. " The proper measure of damages in general is the difference between the contract price and the market price of such goods at the time when, and place where, the contract is broken, because the purchaser having the money in his hands may go into the market and buy."26

23 Rubs v. Tuttle, 158 Calif. 226, 110 Pac. 813; Wilson v. London Ac. Finance Corp., 14 T. L. R. 15; Coffin v. State, 144 Ind. 578, 43 N. . 654, 55 Am. St. 188; Sloan v. McKane, 131 N. Y. App. D. 244, 115 N. Y. S. 648; Patterson v. Plummer, 10 N. Dak. 95, 86 N. W. 111. Cf. In re Swift, 114 Fed. 947; Vos v. Child, 171 Mich. 595, 137 N. W. 209, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 368.

24 Sec.fi 1347, 1355.

25 Barrow v. Arnaud, 8 Q. B. 595, 609. To the same effect are Grand Tower Co. v. Phillips, 23 Wall. 471, 23 L. Ed. 71; Capen v. Glass Co., 105 111. 185; Rahm v. Deig, 121 Ind. 283, 23 N. E. 141; Bucyrus Hay Co. v. Cincinnati Grain Co. (Ky.), 119 S. W. 182; Kribs v. Jones, 44 Md. 396; McGrath v. Gegner, 77 Md. 331, 26 Atl. 502,39 Am. St. Rep. 415; Austrian v. Springer, 94 Mich. 343, 54 N. W. 50, 34 Am. St. Rep. 350; Talcott v. Freed-man, 149 Mich. 577, 113 N. W. 13; Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Northy, 158 Mich. 530, 123 N. W. 47; Olson v. Sharpless, 53 Minn. 91, 55 N. W. 125; Hewson Supply Co. v. Minnesota Brick Co., 55 Minn. 530, 57 N. W. 129;

Eaves v. W. H. Harris & Sons Co., 95 Miss. 607, 49 So. 258; McKnight v. Dunlop, 5 N. Y. 537, 55 Am. Dec. 370; Dana v. Fiedler, 12 N. Y. 40, 62 Am. Dec. 130; Cahen v. Pratt, 69 N. Y. 348, 25 Am. Rep. 203; Saxe v. Penokee Lumber Co., 159 N. Y. 371, 54 N. E. 14; Sharpeville Furnace Co. v. Snyder, 223 Pa. 372, 72 Atl. 786; Thomas Raby, Inc., v. Ward-Meehan Co., 261 Pa. 468, 104 Atl. 750; Hill v. Smith, 32 Vt. 433; Austin v. Langlois, 83 Vt. 104, 74 Atl. 489; Cockburn v. Ashland Lumber Co., 54 Wis. 619, 12 N. W. 49.

The Uniform Sale Act provides: Sec. 67 " (1) Where the property in the goods has not passed to the buyer, and the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods, the buyer may maintain an action against the seller for damages for nondelivery.

" (2) The measure of damages is the loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the seller's breach of contract.

"(3) Where there is an available market for the goods in question, the measure of damages, in the absence of special circumstances showing proxi-

The rule in regard to the difference between the market price and the contract price is applicable where the right of action is based upon repudiation as well as where based upon actual breach.26 Where the goods are by terms of the contract deliverable in instalments, the same principle is to be applied. And if the value of the goods varies during the period of the contract, the plaintiff's damages must be separately calculated for each instalment.27 Sometimes when the seller is unable to fulfill his obligation at the time when performance was due, by mutual consent or by the election of the buyer to continue the contract in spite of the seller's default, the time for delivery is extended. The damages are then to be calculated as of the time fixed by the later agreement. 28 If the seller has prepaid the price no deduction of course must be made from the market price.29 And on the other hand if the market price is no greater than the contract price, the buyer though he has a right of action can recover only nominal damages.30 mate damages of a greater amount, is the difference between the contract price and the market or current price of the goods at the time or times when they ought to have been delivered, or, if no time was fixed, then at the time of the refusal to deliver." For decisions under this section, see Phillips Sheet & Tin Plate Co. v. Boyer, 133 Md. 119, 106 Atl. 166; Gruen v. Ohl k Co., 81 N. J. L. 626, 80 Atl. 547; Pope v. FergiMon, 82 N. J. L. 566, 83 Atl. 353; Fowler 9. Gress Mfg. Co., 94 N. Y. Mae. 660, 158 N. Y. S. 524; Salsberg v. 8pero, 106 N. Y. Misc. 436, 175 N. Y. 8. 839; N. P. Sloan Corp. v. Linton, 260 Pa. 569, 103 Atl. 1011; Allen v. Wolf River Lumber Co., 109 Wis. 253, 172 N. W. 158.

26 Leigh v. Paterson, 8 Taunt. 540; Emory Mfg. Co. v. Salomon, 178 Mass. 582,60 N. E. 377; Austrian v. Springer, 94 Mich. 343, 54 N. W. 50.

27 Brown v. Muller, L. R. 7 Ex, 319; Ex parte Uansamlet T. P. Co., L R. 16 Eq. 155; Barningham v. faith, 31 L. T. R. 540; Siser v. Melton, 129 Ga. 143, 58 S. E. 1055;

Delaware, etd., H. C. Co. v. Mitchell, 92 111. App. 577; Salsberg v. Spero, 106 N. Y. Misc. 436, 176 N. Y. S. 839; Sharpsville Furnace Co. t>. Snyder, 223 Pa. 372, 72 Atl. 786; Hill v. Chipman, 59 Wis. 211, 18 N. W. 160.

28 Ogle v. Earl Vane, LR.2Q. B. 275; Hickman v. Haynes, L. R. 10 C. P. 598; Ralli v. Rockmore, 111 Fed. 874; Consumers' Bread Co. v. Stafford County Flour Mills Co., 239 Fed. 693, 152 C. C. A. 527; Brown v. Sharkey, 93 Iowa, 157, 61 N. W. 364; Schults v. Glickstein, (Supr. Ct. App. Term),168 N. Y. S. 490.

29 Startup v. Cortasa, 2 Cromp. M. & R. 165; Winaide State Bank v. Loimd, 52 Neb. 460, 72 N. W. 486; Tompkins v. Lamb, 195 N. Y. 518, 88 N. E. 1133; Sniethurst v. Woolston, 6 W. & S. 106; Humphreysville Copper Co. v. Mining Co., 33 Vt. 92; Hill v. Smith, 32 Vt. 433.

30 Valpy v. Oakley, 16 Q. B. 941; Moses v. Rasin (C. C), 14 Fed. 772; Acme Elevator Co. v. Johnson, 141 Ky. 718, 133 S. W. 784; Feeder v. Love, 48 Pa. St 407; Wire v. Foster,