connection with return or resale of the goods or otherwise resulting from the breach." 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2710.
Here, A1 Ferro resold the scrap intended for Tube City to a Spanish buyer, Nueva Montana Quijano S.A., following a period in which A1 Ferro's shippers (Craenhals) had to store the scrap. While A1 Ferro received a higher gross price per metric ton on resale, A1 Ferro had to pay freight and insurance charges on the resale. After deducting these expenses, which Tube City would have been obligated to pay under its Agreement with A1 Ferro, A1 Ferro received a lower net price on the scrap of around $ 7 per metric ton.
Under general contract principles, resale damages are based on a seller's net resale price. See Williston Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 1380 (3d ed. 1968). Furthermore, under the Uniform Commercial Code, costs to transport goods in connection with a resale are recoverable by the aggrieved seller as incidental damages. 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2710; see, e.g., Rodwin Metals, Inc. v. Western Non-Ferrous Metals, Inc., 10 Cal. App. 3d 219, 88 Cal. Rptr. 778 (1970).
Here, A1 Ferro chartered three ships, the last one leaving Belgium on January 18, 1988, to carry the scrap from Belgium to Spain. In chartering the three ships, A1 Ferro incurred freight charges of between $ 17.87/ton and $ 18.82/ton and ship insurance charges in the amount of $ 0.10/ton. After deducting these extra charges ($ 158,693 for 8487.82 tons actually shipped) from the gross price paid by the Spanish buyer ($ 1,071,757), A1 Ferro's net receipts from the resale totalled $ 913,064. Under its contract with Tube City, A1 Ferro would have received $ 976,099 (8487.82 tons at $ 115/ton). A1 Ferro thus suffered a net loss on the resale in the amount of $ 63,035.
A1 Ferro is also entitled to incidental damages relating to the storage of the scrap at Craenhals' facilities subsequent to Tube City's repudiation of the contract on December 4, 1987. 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2710. Courts have routinely found that costs incurred to store goods are recoverable incidental damages. See, e.g., Continental-Wirt Electronics Corp. v. Sprague Electric Co., 329 F. Supp. 959 (E.D. Pa. 1971); Trilling v. Raffaele, 41 Del. Co. Rep. 44 (1954).
Here, Craenhals calculated its total storage costs as $ 8,500. Craenhals based its storage charges on a $ 1/ton charge over a one-month period. (Trial Tr. 9/26/89 at 140). Since Tube City first repudiated the contract as early as December 4, 1987, and A1 Ferro did not complete the bulk of its shipments to Spain until mid-January, 1988, the Court finds Craenhals' one-month charge for storage expenses reasonable. Since A1 Ferro is legally liable to Craenhals for its storage charges, and these charges are a result of Tube City's repudiation, Tube City is required to pay to A1 Ferro the amount of the storage charges. See The Dimitrios Chandris Ring v. The Dimitrios Chandris, 43 F. Supp. 829, 832-33 (E.D. Pa. 1942).
The Court denies recovery to A1 Ferro for its other claimed damages relating to Craenhals' lost income ($ 30,000) and bank interest charges ($ 14,407). Both of these charges, as presented at trial, were premised on Craenhals' inability to handle other deliveries while it maintained Tube City's scrap on its docks. (Trial Tr. 141-148). The Court finds these charges, premised on the scrap as an impediment, facially inconsistent with Craenhals' charges for storing the scrap. Furthermore, in reviewing the record, the Court finds that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving these damages with "reasonable certainty". C.T. Bedwell & Sons, Inc. v. International Fidelity Insurance Company, 843 F.2d 683 (3rd Cir. 1988); E.C. Ernst, Inc. v. Koppers Co., Inc., 626 F.2d 324, 327 (3rd Cir. 1980).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds in favor of A1 Ferro and against Tube City in the total amount of $ 71,535, representing net resale losses of $ 63,035 and incidental damages of $ 8,500, and against Tube City and in favor of A1 Ferro on Tube City's counterclaim.
An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, to wit, this 10th day of January, 1990, after a non-jury trial, IT IS ORDERED:
1. That Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff, A1 Ferro Commodities Corp., S.A., and against defendant, Tube City Iron and Metal Company, now known as Tube City, Inc., in the amount of $ 71,535.00 plus interest at the lawful rate from January 18, 1988; and,
2. That Judgment is entered in favor of A1 Ferro Commodities Corp., S.A., defendant on the Counterclaim, and against Tube City Iron and Metal Company, now known as Tube City, Inc., plaintiff on the Counterclaim.