This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
If by the terms of their contract the parties provide for a special course of things, damages which follow a breach and arise out of such special course of things are as much the natural result of such breach of that particular contract, as the damages which follow in the ordinary course of things are the natural result of breach of a contract which contains no special terms. Damages arising out of such special course of things are therefore to be allowed to the party not in default to compensate him for the loss occasioned by breach.1 Thus if seed is sold for planting and it is warranted to be of a specified kind and quality and the vendee plants such seed not knowing that it is of inferior quality, the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the crop as it would have been had the seed been as agreed upon and the value of the crop as raised.2 A similar rule applies as to fruit trees which were warranted sound and sold to be planted at once in an orchard.3 A agreed to furnish to B such ice as B needed for his ice box in which he kept meat for sale. A did not furnish such ice during a part of the summer, and by reason of such breach and of the fact that B was unable to obtain other ice a quantity of meat spoiled. It was held that A was liable to B for the value of such meat.4 A agreed to store perishable goods for B in cold storage, the temperature of the storeroom to be kept below a certain degree. A did not keep the temperature below the degree contracted for and by reason thereof such goods decayed. It was held that A was liable to B for such loss.5 If A agreed to furnish a heater for B's greenhouse to maintain a given temperature, A is liable for damages caused by defective working of such heater, causing damages to B's plants by cold.6 The cases in which a special course of things is specifically contracted for, shade ofi imperceptibly into the class of cases in which the special course of things is known to the party in default but is not specifically contracted for.7
2 Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341; Kramer v. Messner, 101 la. 88; 69 N. W. 1142; Manning v. Fitch, 138 Mass. 273; Townsend v. Wharf Co., 117 Mass. 501; Cutting v. Grand Trunk Co., 13 All. (Mass.) 381; Hurd v. Dunsmore, 63 N. H. 171; Griffin v. Colver, 16 N. Y. 489; Devereux v. Buckley, 34 O. S. 16; 32 Am. Rep. 342; Hammer v. Schoenfelder, 47 Wis. 455; 2 N. W. 1129. "When the special circumstances are known to both parties, it is obvious that each may have contracted with reference to them; and that, if such was in fact the case, the party in fault may be held justly to make good to the other whatever damages he has sustained which were the reasonable and natural consequences of a breach under the circumstances so known and with reference to which the parties acted." Lonergan v. Waldo, 179 Mass. 135, 139; 88 Am. St. Rep. 365; 60 N. E. 479.
3 McKinnon v. McEwan, 48 Mich. 106;, 42 Am. .Rep. 458; 11 N. W. 828; Booth v. Rolling Mill Co., 60 N. Y. 487.
4 Lonergan v. Waldo, 179 Mass. 135; 88 Am. St. Rep. 365; 60 N. E. 479.
5 Forsyth v. Mann, 68 Vt. 116; 32 L. R. A. 788; 34 Atl. 481.
1 Heilman v. Pruyn, 122 Mich. 301; 80 Am. St. Rep. 570; 81 N. W. 97; Eeiger v. Worth, 127 N. C. 230; 80 Am. St. Rep. 798; 52 L. R. A. 362; 37 S. E. 217; Dunn v. Bush-nell, 63 Neb. 568: 93 Am. St. Rep. 474; 88 N. W. 693; Sutherland v. Warehouse Co.. 171 N. Y. 269; 89 Am. St. Rep. 815; 63 N. E. 1100; Booth v. Rolling Mill Co., 60 N. Y. 487; Trigg v. Clay, 88 Va. 330; 29 Am. St. Rep. 723; 13 S. E. 434; Richardson v. Chynoweth, 26 Wis. 656.
2 Edgar v. Corporation. 172 Mass. 581; 52 N. E. 1083; Dunn v. Bushnell, 63 Neb. 568; 93 Am. St. Rep. 474; 88 N. W. 693; Wolcott v. Mount, 36 N. J. L. 262; 13 Am. Rep. 438; affirmed, 38 N. J. L. 496; 20 Am. Rep. 425.
3 Heilman v. Pruyn, 122 Mich. 301; 80 Am. St. Rep. 570; 81 N. W. 97.
4 Hammer v. Schoenfelder, 47 Wis. 455; 2 N. W. 1129.
5 Hyde v. Refrigerating Co., 144 Mass. 432; 11 N. E. 673; Sutherland v. Warehouse Co., 171 N. Y. 269; 89 Am. St. Rep. 815; 63 N. E. 1100; Leidy v. Warehouse Co., 180 Pa. St. 323; 36 Atl. 851.