16 Kan. App. 2d 811, 829 P.2d 916
On April 28, 1988, Denis Tongish contracted with the Decatur Coop Association to sell all sunflower seeds he would grow on 160 acres of land, a figure later reduced to 116.8 acres. The agreement called for delivery of one-third of the seeds by December 31, 1988, one-third by March 31, 1989, and the final third by May 31, 1989, with payment set at $13 per hundred pounds for large seeds and $8 per hundred pounds for small seeds.1
The Coop had entered into a separate agreement with Bambino Bean & Seed, Inc., under which it would resell any seeds acquired from farmers such as Tongish at the identical price, keeping only a $.55 per hundred pounds handling charge.2 Tongish completed partial deliveries to the Coop in October and November of 1988. A dispute arose in January 1989 regarding the dockage level in the delivered seeds, after which the Coop issued an additional payment of $222.33 to Tongish.3
Market prices for sunflower seeds doubled by January 1989. Around January 13, 1989, Tongish advised the Coop that he would not fulfill the remaining obligations under their contract.4 Later that May, Tongish sold 82,820 pounds of sunflower seeds to Danny Thomas, receiving $14,714.89, which equated to roughly $20 per hundred pounds after adjustments for dockage.5
Tongish initiated litigation against Danny Thomas seeking the unpaid balance from their transaction. Thomas deposited $7,359.61 with the court and was dismissed as a party. The Coop then intervened in the action as a third-party defendant, asserting a claim for breach of the sunflower seed purchase agreement.6 A trial occurred on May 14, 1991, at which the court determined that Tongish had breached the contract without any valid basis and awarded the Coop $455.51 in damages based on its anticipated handling profits.7
The Coop appealed the amount of the damages award to the Kansas Court of Appeals.8
Whether the measure of damages for a seller's breach of a contract for the sale of goods is governed by K.S.A. 84-2-713 or by K.S.A. 84-1-106?9
When there is a conflict between a statute dealing generally with a subject and another statute dealing specifically with a phase of it, the specific statute controls. This holds unless it appears that the legislature intended to make the general act controlling.10 K.S.A. 84-2-713 specifically describes a damage remedy that gives the buyer damages when the seller breaches a contract for the sale of goods.11
Yes. K.S.A. 84-2-713 should prevail as the more specific statute according to statutory rules of construction.12 The trial court decided the damages to Coop should be the loss of expected profits.13 K.S.A. 84-2-713 allows the buyer to collect the difference in market price and contract price for damages in a breached contract.14 Tongish breached the contract without any valid basis after the market price of sunflower seeds had doubled.15
The provisions of K.S.A. 84-2-713 provide the proper measure of damages in this case.16