Remedy? Flashcards
Baseline damages awarded for contracts
Expectation damages
Amount of money breaching party would need to pay non-breaching party to put non-breaching party back where she would have been if promise had been kept (What expect to get under K – honor the promise)
Baseline damages awarded for promissory estoppel
Reliance damages
Amount of damages that put the promisee where she would have been if promise had never been
made in the first place
- Out of pocket costs
- Opportunity costs- value of opportunity given up b/c of promise
Damages are compensatory, not punitive for a K breach
Hawkins (Hairy Hand)
Measure for damages=difference b/w what expected and what got
Hawkins (Hairy Hand)
The purpose is to put P in as good a position as he would have been in had D kept his K
Hawkins (Hairy Hand)
K for goods, Breach by seller
D = Market Price – K Price
D = Cover Price (Go buy from someone else) – K Price
- Cover price: needs to be for substantially similar product – if it is a unique good, cannot cover
- If seller breaches, money does not make buyer whole – wanted unique good
K for goods, Breach by buyer
D = K Price – Market Price
D = K Price – Resale Price
- Resale price: must be reasonable – after breach cannot sell for less and sue for difference
- No market price for unique good (seek remedy of specific performance depending on who breaches)
K for nongoods, Breach by seller
D = cost of completion – K price remaining [Nursing Home]
If K price remaining higher than cost of completion, no damages [Nursing Home]
K for nongoods, Breach by buyer
D = cost incurred prior to breach + lost profits – payments received prior to breach [Aiello]
K price = Costs + Profits
K price = Costs Incurred + Costs Saved by Breach + Profits
K price – Costs Saved = Costs Incurred + Profits
D = K price – costs saved by breach [Wired Music]
Damage Limitation Concepts:
Use after calculate damages to see if need to adjust them:
a. Mitigation
b. Foreseeability
c. Certainty
Baseline Rule
Cost of Completion
To get diminution in value instead, need to show:
- Cost of completion requires unreasonable economic waste
- Breaching party operating in good faith
- Breach immaterial
In order to get diminution in value, cost of completion must require unreasonable economic waste
Peevyhouse
For diminution in value, need to show breaching party was operating in good faith
Droher
Distinction between dwelling live in (more likely to give cost of completion b/c envision house to live in –
particular structure) and dwelling to sell (more likely to give diminution in value)
Fox
Damages for breach of K should be measured as of date of breach
Grossman
After an absolute repudiation or refusal to perform by one party to a K, the other party cannot continue to perform and recover damages based on full performance
Rockingham
A plaintiff cannot hold a defendant liable for damages which need not have been incurred
Rockingham
Nonbreaching party has a duty to mitigate damages
Rockingham
Avoidability as a Limitation on Damages:
- Damages are not recoverable for loss that the injured party could have avoided without undue risk,
burden, or humiliation - The injured party is not precluded from recovery by rule stated in (1) to the extent that he has made
reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to avoid loss
RS 350
Rule of mitigation of damages may not be involved by a contract breaker as a basis for hypercritical examination of
the conduct of the injured party or merely for the purpose of showing that the injured person might have taken steps which seemed wise or would have been more advantageous to the defaulter
Kellett
Not unreasonable conduct to award K at somewhat increased cost to one whose performance had on previous
occasions proved satisfactory
Kellett
Where a choice has been required between two reasonable courses, the person whose wrong forced the choice
cannot complain that one rather than the other was chosen
Kellett
Injured party is required to incur only slight expense and reasonable effort in mitigating his damages
Bank One
Where both the plaintiff and defendant have had equal opportunity to reduce the damages by the same act and it is
equally reasonable to expect the D to minimize damages, D is in no position to contend that P failed to mitigate nor will award be reduced on account of damages D could have avoided as easily as P
S.J. Groves