The damages a plaintiff can recover for breach of contract are limited to those that are reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting. This lesson explores the concept of foreseeability from its origin in the Hadley rule to more contemporary applications. The lesson can be run either as an introduction to foreseeability or as a review after you have completed your study.
The topic of this podcast is when consequential damages can be recovered for breach of contract because they are foreseeable. The podcast examines the rules established in Hadley v. Baxendale to determine if a loss is foreseeable and therefore recoverable as a consequential damage, as well as some practical effects of those rules. It also looks at how Article 2 of the UCC handles disclaimers for liability for consequential damages.
In this lesson the concept of foreseeability is illustrated by studying Hadley v. Baxendale. The author explains the meaning of the term "reasonably foreseeable" and presents multiple examples. The lesson ends with a several review questions on this subject.
One of the limitations on the damages a plaintiff can recover for breach of contract is that the plaintiff has a duty to keep the damages as low as reasonably possible. This lesson explores this principle, which is called mitigation. The lesson can be run either as an introduction to mitigation or as a review after you have completed your study.
This podcast explores the basic concept of mitigation, or, as it is sometimes called, avoidable consequences, which is used in computing damages. Mitigation is a principle that can limit a plaintiff’s recovery in a claim for breach of contract. The principle is stated in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350(1). The podcast also discusses Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. and the twist on the common law rule of mitigation found in U.C.C. § 2-704.
This lesson deals with the doctrine of Mitigation of Damages, and examines Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. The basic issues about mitigation are illustrated in a hypothetical scenario followed by a number of questions. Prior understanding of Expectation Measure of Damages is necessary to complete your study. The lesson ends with several summary questions.
This lesson explores the issue of whether, in computing the expectation remedy, the court will award the cost of completion or the diminution in value. The lesson can be run either as an introduction to this aspect of damages or as a review after you have completed your study.
This lesson discusses cost of completion as a remedy that is awarded when there is work still to be completed under a contract, or when the work called for under the contract was completed improperly. The author explains the relationship between expectation damages and cost of completion remedy. The lesson concludes with review questions.
If a contracting party does not complete performance, that party is in breach. But if the party has given most of the promised performance, there may be substantial performance. Another way of saying this is that the breach is not material. This lesson examines the grounds for determining whether a breach is material and explores the consequences if it is. The lesson can be run either as an introduction to substantial performance or as a review after you have completed your study.
The lesson begins with explanations of the terms substantial performance and substantial breach, followed by examples of each. The next section discusses factors listed in the Restatement that are taken into consideration when determining whether there has been a substantial breach. The doctrine of substantial performance in the sale of goods (UCC § 2-508) is described. The lesson ends with review questions.
This lesson explains the concept of excuse of performance by referring to K & G Construction Co. v. Harris. The author discusses factors that are taken into consideration when determining whether a breach was substantial and illustrates them in analysis of Walker & Co. v. Harrison. The next section covers interference as a basis for excuse, followed by a discussion about damages in excuse of performance cases. This lesson ends with a number of review questions to help you better understand the concept.
Reliance damages put the non-breaching party back in the same position the party was in before the contract was made. In this lesson, you will explore the distinction between reliance and expectation damages. Both concepts are illustrated by case law. Then, the author explains how the courts apply reliance and expectation rules when awarding damages. The lesson ends with review questions on this subject.