SALES AND NOTICES. 2723

seller for no greater damages than the seller would have suffered if he
did nothing towards carrying out the contract or the sale after receiv-
ing notice of the buyer's repudiation or countermand. The profit the sel-
ler would have made if the contract or the sale had been fully performed
shall be considered in estimating such damages.

Measure of damages in suit for breach of contract for sale of canned goods. Length
"and form of prayer criticized. Eastern Shore B. & G. Co. v. Messenger, 143 Md. 225.

An. Code, sec. 86. 1910, ch. 346, sec. 83 (p. 292).

86. Where the goods have not been delivered to the buyer, and the buyer
has repudiated the contract to sell or sale, or has manifested his inability
to perform his obligations thereunder, or has committed a material breach
thereof, the seller may totally rescind the contract or the sale by giving
notice of his election so to do to the buyer.

An. Code, sec. 87. 1910, ch. 346, sec. 84 (p. 292).

87. Where the property in .the goods has passed to the buyer, and the
seller wrongfully neglects or reftises to deliver the goods, the buyer may
maintain any action allowed by law to the owner of goods of similar kind
when wrongfully converted or withheld.

An. Code, sec. 88. 1910, ch. 346, sec. 85 (p. 292).

88. (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 non-delivery.

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

(3) Where there is available market for the goods in question, the mea-
sure of damages, in the absence of special circumstances showing proxi-
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 ben delivered; or, if no time was fixed, then at the
time of the refusal to deliver.

The measure of damages for breach by vendor of a contract for sale of tin plate,
held to be difference between contract price and market or current price of goods at
time of refusal to deliver, in absence of evidence showing proximate damages of
a greater amount, and there being no time fixed for delivery when refusal to deliver
took place. Evidence improperly admitted. Phillips Sheet & Tin Plate Co. v.
Boyer, 133 Md. 133.

Evidence as to market price of certain scrap held admissible as reflecting upon
measure of damages laid down in this section. Cases reviewed. Packard Iron Co. v.
Pearl Co., 139 Md. 502.

Damages for breaches of contract, measure of which is set out in this section, held
unliquidated. See notes to art. 75, sec. 17. Westminster M. & F. Co. v. Coffman, 123
Md. 624.

An. Code, sec. 89. 1910, ch. 346., sec. 86 (p. 292).

89. Where the seller has broken a contract to deliver specific or ascer-
tained goods, a court having the powers of a court of equity may, if it
thinks fit, on the application of the buyer, by its judgment or decree, direct
that the contract shall be performed specifically without giving the seller
the option of retaining the goods on payment of damages. The judgment