Contracts

In this lesson you will learn how to calculate damages when the Buyer does not deliver goods or repudiates the contract. First, the author reminds you about the concept of common law mitigation/expectation rule and then contrasts the results with the UCC provisions in this matter. Next, the differences between UCC § 2-713 and § 2-712 are explained. The lesson concludes with several review questions.

One of the rules that limits a plaintiff's recovery for breach of contract is the requirement that damages must be proven to a reasonable certainty. This lesson explores that principle. The lesson can be run either as an introduction to certainty or as a review after you have completed your study.

This lesson is part of a series that deal with contracts remedies. While proving the damages, a plaintiff has to prove damages with "reasonable certainty." This lesson explores that principle. The author discusses main concepts that explain the term "reasonable certainty" (the "new business rule", "traditional rule" and "current rule"). Examples of liberalization of the proof requirements for damages in the UCC and in the area of "psychic losses" are also covered.

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.

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 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.