The seller may perform his contract otherwise but break it in regard to the time of performance. The normal measure of damages in such a case is the difference in value of the goods at the date contracted for and their value when delivered.66 In fact, however, such damages may give the plaintiff either less than compensation or more than compensation. As to the first, the rules governing the recovery of consequential damages mark the boundary of the plaintiff's rights.67 Thus if the goods which the defendant contracted to deliver were machines known to be intended for the buyer's use, the measure of damages then becomes the rental value of such machines for the period of delay,68 unless the plaintiff can show that no other machines could be obtained and that the defendant knew this when he contracted with the plaintiff, in which case the damages might be greater.69 Whether special expenses resulting from the delay are recoverable depends upon how far they were foreseeable when the contract was entered into.70 As to the restriction of the plaintiff's damages it has been held that if it appears that machines contracted for would not have been used during the time when the defendant was in default no damages are recoverable for the delay.71

66 Startup v. Cortazzi, 2 Cr. M. & R. 165; Ramish v. Kirschbraun, 06 Cal. 676, 33 Pac. 780, 107 Cal. 659, 40 Pac. 1045; Clement,etc., Co. v. Mese-role, 107 Mass. 362; Whalon v. Aid-rich, 8 Minn. 346; Spiers v. Halsted, 74 N. C. 620. Where the price had been paid interest from the time of the breach was allowed in Loomis v. Norman Ac. Co., 81 Conn. 343, 71 Atl.

358; Edwards v. Sanborn, 6 Mich. 348.

67 See supra, {{ 1347, 1355.

68 Maryland Ice Co. v. Arctic Ice Machine Mfg. Co., 79 Md. 103, 29 Atl. 69; Tomkins Co. v. Dallas Cotton Mills, 130 N. C. 347, 41 S. E. 938; Standard Supply Co. v. Carter, 81 S. C. 181, 62 S. E. 150, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 155.

69 See supra, (1347.