8

Remedies
Expectation Damages Cost of Completion or Diminution in Value: completion of the contract must involve unreasonable economic waste for change in value to be appropriate; must not have breached the contract intentionally and must show substantial performance in good faith American Standard v. Schectman (grading) awarded cost of completion: where there has been substantial performance of the contract made in good faith but defects exist, the correct of which would result in economic waste, the court then will look into the value of the construction as completed and the value of the construction had it been completed as contracted: waste comes from inefciency/inability to bargain between two positions. Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. (strip mining) awarded diminution in value. The disparity in value shows potential economic waste. This case was overturned but is still used. Many courts award diminution in value where the cost of performance greatly exceeds the diminution in value. Problems in Measuring Expectancy Chatlos v. National Cash Register the contract price was lower than the value of a machine promised, but was entitled to the value of the machine promised Dissent: UCC 2-714- puts buyer in the same position he would have been in had there been no breach Carlson v. Rysavy (trailer) emphasis on the difference in value and what was promise. Repair and market value are possible yardsticks. UCC 2-607 requires that the buyer notify the seller with issues a short time after the breach UCC 2-714/715 (1) where the buyer has accepted the goods and given notication he may recover reasonable damages (2) the measure of damages is the difference at the time and place of acceptance (as warranted) and between the valued of goods accepted (3) in a proper case incidental and consequential damages may also be recovered Specic Performance specic performance awarded when there are no adequate remedies at law/the goods are unique Klein v. Pepsico no specic performance. Klein sought SP as the jet had appreciated in value. Issues determining damages: ination, interest and exchange rates

8-1

Klein v. Pepsico no specic performance. Klein sought SP as the jet had appreciated in value. Issues determining damages: ination, interest and exchange rates Reliance Damages Sullivan v. OConnor (nose job) dont promise outcomes, promise actions/efforts. Awarded a truncated idea of expectation damages. Used reliance to put back prenose job. Kizas v. Webster (FBI) s recovered on their reliance losses and expenditures; the difference between their earnings before joining the program and leaving it Lost Volume Sellers Lost Volume Retailer: car dealer argues that they lost their prot margin as they were able to make an additional sale, making the sale would have been protable, and he would have made an additional sale absent breach. (UCC 2-708) But, the measure is the opposite of the normal facts: a buyer would pay a non-refundable deposit when the market is tight, but not if the market was ooded. Goldberg says we shouldnt compensate the lost volume retailer because they could negotiate the option. Easiest default rule is zero. Davis Cemical Corp. v. Diasonics Diasonics required that it would have been protable to produce and sell another unit. Rodriguez v. Learjet about a liquidated damages clause: lost prots were used as a defense here. They could have argued for $1.8M but only sought the 250k in liquidation damages to show that the installment practice was reasonable and enforceable.

8-2