Contracts for the sale of goods differ from building and service contracts in that the buyer, upon the default of the seller after delivery of part of the goods, is often in a position to make restitution in specie. It is because of this fact, perhaps, that although in New York and a few other jurisdictions relief is persistently denied,6 the weight of authority permits a recovery by the seller of the value of the goods delivered by him.7 Even in England, where in othercases the right of a party in default to compensation for part performance is most confidently denied (ante, Sec. 164), the seller of goods is afforded relief.1

1 Manitowoc Steam Boiler Works, v. Manitowoc Glue Co., 1903, 120 Wis. 1; 97 N. W. 515. And see Fuller-Warren Co. v. Shurts, 1897, 95 Wis. 606; 70 N. W. 683; Madison v. American Sanitary Engineering Co., 1903, 118 Wis. 480; 95 N. W. 1097.

2 Gwinnup v. Shies, 1903, 161 Ind. 500; 69 N. E. 158. And see Simpson Construction Co. v. Stenberg, 1906, 124 111. App. 322. Cf. Katz v. Bedford, 1888, 77 Cal. 319; 19 Pac. 523; 1 L. R. A. 826.

3 Blood v. Wilson, 1886, 141 Mass. 25, 27; 6 N. E. 362.

4 Allen v. Burns, 1909, 201 Mass. 74; 87 N. E. 194.

5 Hayward v. Leonard, 1828, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 181; 19 Am. Dec. 268; Walker v. Orange, 1860, 16 Gray (Mass.) 195; Powell v. Howard, 1872, 109 Mass. 192; Blood v. Wilson, 1886, 141 Mass. 25; 6 N. E. 362; Sipley v. Stickney, 1906, 190 Mass. 43; 76 N. E. 226; 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 469; 112 Am. St. Rep. 309; Douglas v. City of Lowell, 1907, 194 Mass. 268; 80 N. E. 510; Bowen v. Kimball, 1909, 203 Mass. 364; 89 N. E. 542; 133 Am. St. Rep. 302.

6 Haslack v. Mayers, 1857, 26 N. J. L. 284; Brown v. Fitch, 1867, 33 N. J. L. 418; Champlin v. Rowley, 1835, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 258; 1837, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 187; Mead v. Degolyer, 1837, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 632; Baker v. Higgins, 1860, 21 N. Y. 397; Catlin v. Tobias, 1863, 26 N. Y. 217; 84 Am. Dec. 183; Kein v. Tupper, 1873, 52 N. Y. 550; Nightingale v. Eiseman, 1890, 121 N. Y. 288; 24 N. E. 475; Witherow v. Witherow, 1847, 16 Ohio 238.

7 McDonough v. Evans Marble Co., 1902, 112 Fed. 634; 50 C. C. A. 403; United States v. Molloy, 1906, 144 Fed. 321; 75 C. C. A. 283;

In principle, as has been said before, the right of the party in default depends upon the character of his breach. But, while in some cases stress is laid on the injustice of allowing a recovery by a willful wrongdoer, and in others upon the injustice of denying relief to one who has endeavored in good faith to perform, the distinction between a willful and an unintentional or unavoidable breach has not been recognized as a test of the seller's right.