Remedies for Breach - Reasonable and Forseeable/mitigation

Question 1

Expectation damages review

Question 2

General damages

Answer 2

350,000-300,000 = 50,000

Question 3

Consequential damages

Answer 3

Foreseeable damages at the time of the contract that would result from a breach a contract.

Question 4

McDonald v. John P. Scripps Newspaper (1989)

Answer 4

Fact: Plaintiff lost a spelling bee to a competitor who should not have been allowed to compete.

Abstract issue: Whether Gavin’s loss was causal of the alleged breach.

Rule: There has to be a causal connection between the breach and damages incurred by the plaintiff for there to be compensatory damages.

Question 5

Expectation damages: Money damages had the contract not been broken been given

Question 6

Elements of consequential damages:

Answer 6

The defendant’s action caused the damage and there is some standard by which the amount of damages may be adequately determined.

Question 7

Halliburton Co. v. Eastern Cement Corp.

Answer 7

Liquidated damages, flexibility in the contracts, and the court could have gotten to the contracts in the remedies section.

Question 8

Background on Certainty

Answer 8

1) must be certain in amount and in causation
2) assumes the risk of some uncertainty because of the breach
3) No speculative damages

Question 9

RST 352

Answer 9

Damages are not recoverable for loss beyond an amount that the evidence permits to be established with reasonable certainty.

Must prove a causal connection with reasonable certainty
but for causation
can’t be too remote or theoretical
damages flow naturally from the breach

Question 10

Hadley v. Baxendale

Answer 10

Breach alleged: Hadley needed that shaft.

Issue:

Abstract rule: When damages do not arise naturally from the breach or the breaching party does not know about the foreseeable resulting damages from the breach, then the breached party can not recover for damages.

Question 11

Carla Deitsch v. The Music Company

Answer 11

Brief Facts: A wedding band did not show up after being contractually obligated to do so with a security deposit paid by plaintiff.

Rules: Restitution is not encompassing all of the damages. Reliance damages is too much. Deprivation of comforts can result in compensatory damages when considering the contexts.

Question 12

Forseeability

Answer 12

1. Damage forseeable to a reasonable person familiar with circumstances.
2. Breach does not have to be forseeable loss from breach must be
3. Needs only to be the probable result, not the certain result,
4. From perspective of breaching party
5. Consent not required; consent is enough

Question 13

Rules for forseeability

Answer 13

1) damages are not recoverable for loss that the party in breach did not have reason to foresee as a probable result of the breach when the contract was made
2) loss may be foreseeable as a probable result of

Question 14

Parker v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation (1970)

Answer 14

Abstract rule:

Brief facts: Breach of acting contract in relation to mitigation.

Issue: Whether an employee does not mitigate their damages when they refuse to engage in a job of different terms with the same employer.

Rule: When the offer of an employment for alternative employment is materially different than the terminated employment offer, the employee does not fail to mitigate their damages by refusing the alternative employment.