parent nodes: 42 USC 1983 | abstention | administrative common law | burden of proof | Calabresi corollary | civil commitment | common law | Compensatory Damages | condition precedent | consequential damages | Contracts | damages for land contracts | derivative suit | duty to mitigate | executive immunity | expectancy damages | Filartiga v Pena-Irala II | habeas corpus and 42 USC 1983 | Hawkins v McGee | Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors | Hoffman v Red Owl Stores | invasion of privacy | libel | liquidated damages | Negligence Torts | negotiable instrument | Parklane Hosiery Co v Shore | permanent damages | Punitive Damages | qualified immunity | Rasul v Bush | real property | Real Property | reliance damages | remedies at equity | Rule 4 | specific performance | Spur v Del E Webb | Torts | unconscionability | Wolofsky v Behrman
Damages
Tort damages:Compensatory DamagesPunitive Damages[Nominal Damages]
Contract damages:
"Virtually any breach gives the injured party a claim for damages for at least nominal damages, 'to which ... for reasons we do not understand every victim of breach of contract, unlike a tort victim, is entitled.' Farnsworth on Contracts 12.8 (quoting Chronister Oil Co. v Unocal Ref. & Mktg., 34 F.3d. 462, 466 (7th Cir. 1994) (Posner, C.J.))
Contract remedies generally
(First, bargaining)
Is a valid contract formed?
If yes, is there breach?
If breached, does the contract provide for liquidated damages?
Are the liquidated damages a penalty?
If yes, the liquidated damages are unenforceable
If no, the liquidated damages apply
If not, there is an ambiguity in the contract, and default rules apply
expectation damages:
-no speculation about damages
-only foreseeable damages apply (cf. consequential damages)
-the injured party has a duty to mitigate
-the cost of performance is the default rule
-use the change in expected value if performance is wasteful, unreasonable, or impossible
reliance damages
-the injured party has a duty to mitigate
-no speculation about damages
restitution damages
-there must be partial performance of the contract
-measured by the unjust enrichment of the defendant by the plaintiff minus P's own enrichment
equitable remedies:
-specific performance
-damages for land contracts
-injunction
-recission
- for cases of mutual mistake of fact or unilateral mistake
- damages for land contracts
- lack of competency
If no, is there reliance on the invalid contract?
Does promissory estoppel apply?
If so, P can get reliance damages
If not, P gets nothing
Types of contract remedies
Remedies at law:expectation damages remedy the interest in realizing the value of expectancy created by another's promise; attempt to put the plaintiff in as good a position as it would have been had the contract been performed
consequential damagesreliance damages attempt to put the plaintiff back in the position in which that party would have been had the contract not been made damages for land contracts
Equitable remedies:
injunction
[test damages] attempt to prevent unjust enrichment by allowing a party to to recover values conferred on the other party through efforts to perform a contract
quantum meruit
specific performance
recission
Non-damage remedies:liquidated damages and penalties[non-compete clause]s
Limitations on damages
avoidability limitation
foreseeability limitation
emotional loss limitation
Economic analysis of contract remedies
Where
c=cost of performance
p=price of party's performance=100
v=value of party's performance
Cost Seller's desire Kaldor-Hicks expectation damages specific performance
(p-c>0) (v>c) (50)
50 perform perform perform perform
120 breach perform perform perform
200 breach breach breach breach
Notice that
(1) the buyer and seller can negotiate around remedies, even specific performance (see Coase Theorem)
(2) specific performance has low transaction costs for the court
See Calabresi corollary
[icon: skull]
[alias: damages]
[alias: remedies]
[alias: remedy]