Summary of the Facts

Loral also had the burden of demonstrating that it could not obtain the parts elsewhere within the reasonable time, and there's no doubt that it met this burden. The 10 manufactures whom Loral contacted comprised its entire list of "approved vendors", and none of them was able to commence delivery soon enough. Loral had no choice, when the prices were raised by Austin, but to take the gears at the "coerced" prices and then sue to get the excess back.
Austin's argument is that Loral lost any rights to a refund of money by waiting until July, 1967, long after the termination date of the contract, to disaffirm it. Loral did delay making its demand for a refund until three days after Austin's last delivery on the second subcontract explaining that Loral feared another stoppage of deliveries. …