| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

This case involved a dispute between George B. Morewood, John R. Morewood, and Frederic R. Routh (the appellants) and Lorenzo N. Enequist (the owner of the brig Gothland). The appellants had purchased goods from the brig Gothland in 1858 but failed to pay for them when they were due; as such, Enequist brought suit against them for breach of contract in 1859. The Supreme Court ultimately found that although there was no express agreement between the parties regarding payment terms or interest on late payments, it was implied by law that any unpaid balance would bear interest at 6% per annum until paid off in full - thus ruling in favor of Enequist's claim for damages due to nonpayment with accrued interest since delivery date of goods sold.
In the dissenting opinion of George B. Morewood, John R. Morewood, and Frederic R. Routh v Lorenzo N. Enequist, Owner of the Brig Gothland, Justice Grier argued that a contract between two parties should be interpreted in accordance with its plain language and not by any extraneous circumstances or evidence outside of it. He believed that when an agreement is made between two parties to pay for goods at a certain price on delivery, then payment must be made upon delivery regardless if there was an understanding prior to entering into the contract about how much would actually be paid for those goods once they were delivered; this interpretation was based on what he saw as being fair and reasonable under such circumstances given their respective positions in relation to each other at the time of making said agreement. Furthermore, he also argued that even though one party may have had more knowledge than another regarding certain facts surrounding a transaction does not necessarily mean they are liable for damages due to misrepresentation since both sides agreed upon terms without any coercion or fraud involved from either side's part during negotiations leading up to signing said agreement - thus upholding his belief in interpreting contracts according to their plain language rather than external factors which could potentially alter them after-the-fact