George Pollen and Robert Colgate v. . Thomas O. Le Roy and David Smith. [Fn]

Summary

The Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiffs' notice and offer constituted a sufficient tender of the lead, that they were not required to make manual delivery, that they could resell the lead without giving notice of time or place and recover the deficiency plus expenses, and that damages are measured by the resale difference. The Court also ruled that trade‑usage evidence is admissible to resolve contractual ambiguities, while evidence of prior negotiations is inadmissible.