(United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit) A purchaser of machines designed to recondition rubber sought damages for breach of contract, namely, the cost of the foundation on which the machines were placed. However, the purchaser did not prove the earnings he would have received from the machines had they been in conformity with the contract. Nor did the defendant prove that the plaintiff would not have recovered his expenditure had the contract been performed. It appears that it was a case where it was difficult to know what the result of the contract would have been.
Held: Learned Hand CJ discussed a plaintiff’s choice of damages claim for breach of contract: ‘In cases where the venture would have proved profitable to the promisee there is no reason why he should not recover his expenses. On the other hand, on those occasions in which the performance would not have covered the promisee’s outlay, such a result imposes the risk of the promisee’s contract upon the promisor. We cannot agree that the promisor’s default in performance should under this guise make him an insurer of the promisee’s venture; yet it does not follow that the breach should not throw upon him the duty of showing that the value of the performance would in fact have been less than the promisee’s outlay. It is often very hard to learn what the value of the performance would have been; and it is a common expedient, and a just one, in such situations to put the peril of the answer upon that party who by his wrong has made the issue relevant to the rights of the other. On principle, therefore, the proper solution would seem to be that the promisee may recover his outlay in preparation for the performance, subject to the privilege of the promisor to reduce it by as much as he can show that the promisee would have lost, if the contract had been performed.’
Judges:
Learned Hand CJ
Citations:
(1949) 178 F. 2d 182
Jurisdiction:
United States
Cited by:
Cited – Parker and Another v SJ Berwin and Co and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimants sought damages from their former solicitors. They set out to purchase a football club, expending substantial sums for the purpose, relying on the defendants’ promised provision of service in finding and arranging the funding. They said . .
Cited – Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd ComC 4-Aug-2010
Lost Expenses as Damages for Contract Breach
The court was asked as to the basis in law of the principle allowing a contracting party to claim, as damages for breach, expenditure which has been wasted as a result of a breach. The charterer had been in breach of the contract but the owner had . .
Cited – Bowlay Logging Limited v Domtar Limited 1978
(Canada) The parties contracted for the claimant to cut timber and the defendant to haul it. The plaintiff said that the defendant breached the contract by supplying insufficient trucks to haul the timber away, and claimed as damages his wasted . .
Cited – C and P Haulage v Middleton CA 27-Jun-1983
The parties entered into an agreement allowing the defendant to occupy the plaintiff’s land. They had disputed whether it was a licence or a lease. The occupier had expended sums on improving the premises, but had then been summarily ejected. He now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
International, Contract, Damages
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.278876