Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Tongish v. Thomas Case Brief

Supreme Court of Kansas1992Docket #1009503
840 P.2d 471 251 Kan. 728 20 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 936 1992 Kan. LEXIS 172

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A farmer breached a contract to sell seeds after the market price doubled. The court awarded the buyer damages based on the market price-contract price difference, even though this gave the buyer a windfall far exceeding its actual lost profit.

Legal Significance: Establishes that the specific UCC remedy for non-delivery (market price minus contract price under § 2-713) prevails over the UCC’s general goal of limiting damages to actual loss (§ 1-106), particularly to discourage a seller’s deliberate, opportunistic breach.

Tongish v. Thomas Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Denis Tongish, a farmer, entered into a contract to sell his sunflower seed crop to the Decatur Coop Association (Coop) at a fixed price of $13 per hundredweight. The Coop, in turn, had a contract to resell the seeds to a third party, Bambino Bean & Seed, Inc., for the same price it paid Tongish. The Coop’s only profit was a pre-arranged 55-cent handling fee per hundredweight, meaning its profit was fixed regardless of market fluctuations. After the contract was formed, adverse weather conditions caused the market price for sunflower seeds to nearly double. Tongish subsequently repudiated the contract with the Coop and sold the remainder of his crop to another buyer for approximately $20 per hundredweight, realizing a substantial profit. The Coop sued Tongish for breach. The trial court awarded the Coop damages equal to its actual lost profit—the $455.51 handling fee. The Coop appealed, arguing it was entitled to damages calculated as the difference between the market price and the contract price, a much larger sum.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: When a seller breaches a contract for the sale of goods by non-delivery, should the buyer’s damages be limited to its actual lost profit under the general principles of UCC § 1-106, or should they be calculated as the difference between the market price and the contract price as specified in UCC § 2-713?

The buyer’s damages must be calculated under the specific provision of UCC Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat n

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

When a seller breaches a contract for the sale of goods by non-delivery, should the buyer’s damages be limited to its actual lost profit under the general principles of UCC § 1-106, or should they be calculated as the difference between the market price and the contract price as specified in UCC § 2-713?

Conclusion

This case solidifies the majority rule that UCC § 2-713's market-based damage Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nis

Legal Rule

In a conflict between the UCC's general remedies provision (K.S.A. 84-1-106) and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cil

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court of Kansas adopted the appellate court's reasoning, focusing on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Issue: When a seller breaches, should a reseller-buyer’s damages be its
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla p

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More