Home Contract law Remedies to Breach of Contract in the US

Remedies to Breach of Contract in the US

August 8, 2024

This article has been written by Kiranjeet Kaur. This article aims to offer the viewers an intricate exploration of the legal recourse available to individuals affected by the failure to fulfil contractual duties resulting in a breach of contract in the United States. The coverage includes relevant provisions, applicable laws, and recent advancements in contract law across different states of the US.

Table of Contents

Introduction

In a general sense, a contract can be defined as an agreement entered into by parties, giving rise to certain rights and duties to be fulfilled by the parties to the contract, which is legally binding on the parties. A mutual agreement or meeting of the minds, a lawful proposal and acceptance to the same, adequate consideration, competency and lawfulness are some of the essentials for the formation of a valid contract. Failure on the part of either of the parties to fulfil any one of these essentials will make a contract legally unenforceable. Express contracts, implied contracts, unilateral contracts, bilateral contracts, option contracts, contracts of adhesion, fixed-price contracts, cost-plus contracts, time and materials contracts, unit pricing contracts, simple contracts, and unconscionable contracts are some of the common types of contracts entered into by parties on a daily basis around the globe.

It’s crucial to highlight that contracts are more than just legally binding promises; they involve placing responsibilities on the parties. These responsibilities demand that the parties either carry out specific actions or abstain from certain activities, covering the rights and duties arising from the contract. It is the responsibility of the parties to fulfil these obligations completely and according to their individual capacities. Non-performance or any inability to discharge contractual obligations arising from the contract leads to a ‘breach of contract’, entitling the aggrieved party to take legal action against the party that has breached the contract. A breach of a contract occurs when either party fails to meet their contractual obligations, whether partially or completely. This includes not fulfilling the specified duties outlined in the contract, providing inferior services, particularly in service contracts between employees and the company, or not delivering goods or services on the agreed-upon date as previously determined in the contract.

When a breach of contract occurs, it empowers the party that has suffered losses due to such non-performance of contractual obligations with the right to receive compensation for the losses suffered by the aggrieved party. In legal language, this is referred to as a legal remedy. Further remedies have been broadly classified as legal remedies and equitable remedies. The former refers to remedies granted by the court when adjudicating a matter, particularly those of a civil nature involving compensation in the form of money provided to the aggrieved party for the losses suffered. Regarding the law of contract, the monetary value to be paid to the aggrieved party for the incurred loss as compensation is known as “damages”. The latter, equitable remedies, are awarded by the courts when the legal remedies are disproportionate or fail to serve justice to the aggrieved party. Such equitable remedies can be granted by the courts through means such as specific performance, injunctions and restitution.

In the United States, parties dealing with a breach of contract have a range of remedies available, such as restitution, reliance, limitations on damages, special remedies, and the expectation of interest. This article aims to provide readers with a detailed examination of the legal options accessible to individuals affected by the failure to fulfil contractual duties, leading to a breach of contract in America. The coverage includes relevant provisions, applicable laws, and recent advancements in contract law across different states.

Laws governing contracts in the US

In America, it is generally the statutory law at the state level (laws enacted by the legislative body of a specific state), the judicial precedents that constitute common law (judge-made law), and private law (individual contracts) that regulate the functioning of contracts. Private law refers to all the individual contracts entered into by the parties, explicitly laying down the terms and conditions agreed upon by the involved parties. There is a possibility that individual contracts between parties might supersede or overrule the general rules established by the state statutory laws, as they are the set of rules that the parties themselves agree upon. However, it must be noted that the contracts must be valid in the eyes of the law in order to be enforceable.

The Statute of Frauds which is again a state statutory law, might require specific contracts to be documented and executed with precise procedures in order to make a contract legally enforceable. However, in certain instances, the parties can enter into a legally binding agreement without the necessity of endorsing a formal written document. In the landmark case of Lucy v. Zehmer (1954), the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia pronounced that even an agreement made on a piece of napkin could be legally enforceable and constitute a valid contract if such a contract had been entered into by the parties with a sound mind, showed consensus ad idem (mutual consent), and involved valid consideration. This implies that the idea of a contract being documented and executed with precise procedures is not a necessary prerequisite for a contract to be legally binding if it doesn’t lack essential elements such as mutual assent and a valid consideration to make it legally enforceable.

The Restatement of Law, Second Contracts, published by the American Law Institute, provides a comprehensive overview of the principles guiding common law contracts. Almost all the states in America have embraced some of the original articles enumerated in the Uniform Commercial Code, which primarily acts as a legislative framework that guides and regulates the functioning of various types of contracts in America. Provisions such as Article 1 (General Provisions) and Article 2 (Sales) are primary articles that govern contract law in general. Contracts for apportioning the parties’ right to payment in security interest agreements are mainly regulated by the provisions laid down under Article 9 (Secured Transactions) of the Uniform Commercial Code. Other types of contracts, such as those related to specific activities or business sectors, are primarily governed by state legislation and/or federal law. In 1988, the United States became a party to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, which now oversees contracts falling within its jurisdiction.

Breach of contract : an overview

A breach of contract occurs when the parties to the contract do not fulfil their promised contractual obligations arising from the agreement. A breach, in this context, refers to an infraction of the law when either of the parties to the contract fails to perform their part of promised contractual obligations in a legally binding agreement. There have been a plethora of cases in the history of American contracts that have truly paved the way for legal practitioners, judges, and lawyers in how they interpret and apply principles in matters related to breach of contract under American contract law today. Here are a few significant cases that have genuinely shaped American contract law as we see it today.

Hawkins v. McGee (1929), also popularly known as the ‘hairy hand case’, is a landmark judgement in American contract law. In this particular case, the plaintiff, George Hawkins, agreed to undergo skin grafting surgery for the removal of scarring tissues from his hand by transplanting skin from his chest. Unfortunately, the surgery did not materialize as promised by the defendant, Dr. Edward R.B. McGee, who had assured the plaintiff that undergoing the surgical procedure would leave him with an unscarred hand. However, it did not turn out as promised, and instead, the plaintiff was left with a hairy hand. Here, it should be noted that Hawkins agreed to undergo the surgical procedure only after receiving assurance from the defendant, Dr. Edward R.B. McGee, who guaranteed him that the surgery would be a success. However, it failed, as hair started growing on his hand soon after the surgery since the skin had been autografted from the plaintiff’s chest. The plaintiff decided to bring legal action against the defendant because he had consented to the procedure based on an implicit warranty that it would undoubtedly permanently fix his scarred hand. Unfortunately, it did not turn out as guaranteed by the defendant. This case holds a crucial position in American contract law, as it played a key role in establishing the precise method for measuring damages in the event of a contract breach. In situations where the aggrieved party has entered into a contract explicitly based on an implied guarantee, the calculated damages are determined by the difference between the value of having a completely treated and unscarred hand as guaranteed by the defendant and the actual outcome of having a hand with unwanted hair. This calculation includes any reasonably expected additional costs or losses related to the situation. The above-mentioned case essentially set the standard for measuring expectation damages, a method that is still followed in breach of contract cases in the United States to this day.

In Stambovsky v. Ackley (1991), the plaintiff, Stambovsky, filed a lawsuit seeking to rescind the contract he had entered into with the defendants, Ackley and the real estate agency. Rescission, under contract law, involves revoking a contract and treating it as if it had never existed in the first place. This entails ensuring that all the rights, duties, and obligations arising from such a contract are obliterated. The plaintiff, Stambovsky, had relocated to a new neighbourhood. In his quest for a house, he entered into a contract with the defendants, Ackley and the real estate agency, who sold him a house despite knowing that it was haunted. The haunting of the house was not mere rumour; the entire neighbourhood was aware of it, and the property had garnered significant national press attention for being haunted. Upon discovering this fact, Stambovsky filed a lawsuit to rescind the contract, causing a significant drop in the market value of the property. The primary issue in this case was whether an undisclosed condition, which negatively affects the property’s value and leads to a decrease in its market value, can serve as grounds for the plaintiff to rescind a contract. The argument put forth was that if the property’s value diminishes solely because the seller failed to disclose relevant information related to the property to the buyer, the buyer has the full right to revoke the purchase agreement. This applies when a condition created by the seller significantly reduces the contract’s value and is something the seller knows about or is unlikely for a careful buyer to discover. Even if the seller includes a clear disclaimer like “as is,” it won’t be valid if the critical information is known only to the seller. The dissenting opinion disagreed with the majority’s decision to abandon the traditional principle of caveat emptor. The dissent found the majority’s rationale, especially in the context of a haunted house, to be unreasonable and even absurd for discarding such a longstanding doctrine. The court observed that New York courts traditionally adhered to caveat emptor, a principle where the buyer is responsible for inspecting the property for obvious issues. However, the court acknowledged that this doctrine was being set aside because, in many instances, it applied to physical defects that a careful buyer could likely uncover. In the present case, the problem was caused by the seller and was not something thorough examination of the house could reveal.

Remedies available to the aggrieved party in the event of a breach of contract in the US

When the parties to a contract fail to perform the contractual obligations arising from such a legally binding agreement, it is referred to as a breach of contract. A notable increase in instances of breach of contract prompted the establishment of a robust legal framework to regulate and govern subsequent disputes. In the United States, parties dealing with a breach of contract have a range of remedies available, such as restitution, reliance, limitations on damages, special remedies, and the expectation of interest.

As discussed earlier, the term ‘damages’ in contract law refers to the monetary compensation granted to the aggrieved party who has incurred a loss due to the breach of the contract by the other party. This breach occurs when the other party fails to fulfil specific contractual obligations. Therefore, one of the main objectives of awarding damages to the aggrieved party in the form of monetary compensation for a breach of contract under contract law is to restore the party that has suffered harm from a breach of contract to the financial position they would have occupied if the breach had not taken place. Consequently, the standard solution for a breach of contract is the provision of financial compensation in the form of monetary damages. The damages usually do not exceed and remain restricted to the terms and conditions clearly laid down in the contract. These damages have been elaborated further for better understanding in the following section such as punitive damages (Section 355 of Restatement (Second) of Contracts), reliance damages (Section 349 of Restatement (Second) of Contracts), specific performance ( Section 359 of Restatement (Second) of Contracts), and liquidated damages (Section 356 of Restatement (Second) of Contracts). Let’s discuss in detail each of the remedies available to the plaintiff as per law.

Punitive damages

Punitive damages, also commonly known as ‘exemplary damages’, involve a monetary value paid as compensation in matters, specifically those related to torts or civil issues. The primary objective of the court in awarding punitive damages is to penalise the party for grossly negligent behaviour, aiming to discourage such misconduct in the future. This is distinct from compensatory damages, which intend to repay or compensate the aggrieved party that has suffered actual losses due to a breach of contract by the opposing party in a legally binding agreement. Punitive damages also send a strong societal message by not only punishing the wrongdoer but also deterring other individuals from engaging in such misconduct or egregious behaviour. However, it shall be noted that punitive damages are not awarded in cases of a breach of contract, unlike tort cases. For instance, suppose in a contract that both parties, A and B, mutually agree on a sum of $40,000 to be paid to party B for painting party A’s house. However, at the time of making payment, A refuses to pay the entire agreed amount of $40,000; instead, he is only willing to pay $10,000 to B for the work done by him. In this scenario, the court will award a sum of $30,000 in damages to party B. In numerous instances, courts abstain from granting punitive damages, a principle strongly shaped by the theory of efficient breach. Advocates of this theory contend that there are situations where it is more practical and expedient for contractual parties to breach their agreement rather than fulfil the corresponding obligations. This breach is viewed as more resource-efficient than undertaking the actual obligations, ultimately proving beneficial for society at large.

The concept of punitive damages, also commonly known as exemplary damages, was first acknowledged in the landmark case of Huckle v. Money (1763) under English common law. In this case, the petitioner was taken into custody and unlawfully detained for about six hours by the defendant. The jury, along with compensatory damages, granted exemplary damages of 300 pounds to the defendant, which was not proportionate to the injury caused to the petitioner by such detention, as he had only sustained a limited injury of losing six hours of his time. However, the jury contended that the award of 300 pounds as exemplary damages to the defendant was entirely justified because the defendant had acted arbitrarily under an unlawful warrant, thus violating the Magna Carta, the charter of liberties under English common law. Such detainment was carried out in a despotic and grievous manner. In this case, it was determined that the primary purpose of awarding exemplary damages to the plaintiff is not merely to compensate the plaintiff for the emotional distress, injured pride, or injured sentiments caused to him by the defendant’s misconduct. Instead, it aims to punish the defendant for his blatant misconduct, with the intention of discouraging such behaviour in the future.

In the case of Wikes v. Wood (1763), the jury emphasised the primary objective behind awarding exemplary damages. They stated that the rationale behind awarding exemplary damages to the plaintiff goes beyond mere compensation for their contentment. Instead, it aims to deliver justice to the injured party by punishing the defendant for his misconduct, intending to deter such behaviour in the future. This also portrays the strong disapproval of the jury towards the defendant’s wrongful conduct. Therefore, it can be concluded that the defendant’s misconduct is the central factor underlying the rationale for awarding exemplary damages by the courts under English common law.

Reliance damages

There are situations where the parties to the contract might retrieve more than the actual consideration (specifically monetary in nature) mutually agreed upon by the parties in a contract. This is again strongly supported by another theory, the theory of reliance damages. Reliance damages pertain to the compensation awarded by the court to a party who, acting reasonably and prudently, placed trust in a promise that the law recognizes and enforces. The proponents of this theory argue that plaintiffs who placed trust in the defendant’s misrepresentation in question, which later led to a breach of contract, shall be entitled to compensation for the legitimate expenditures incurred by the plaintiffs due to their reliance or dependence on such misrepresentation. For instance, imagine a scenario where a party pays and arranges for catering services, trusting the promise that the venue will be ready for an event where these food services are to be provided. If, however, the arrangement for the venue’s preparation fails to materialize or is not successfully completed, the party that had already paid for the catering services would be entitled to recover the expenses incurred for the catering service due to the breach of the venue construction agreement. Reliance damages are guided by the principle of promissory estoppel; however, the determination of whom reliance damages would be awarded is solely based on the court’s discretion.

In the case of Cohen v. Cowels Media Co. (1991), the petitioner, Dan Cohen, was appointed as a campaign associate for a political party in the 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial race. He provided certain court records related to a candidate from the opposition party contesting for the position of lieutenant governor to the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. The St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Star and Tribune promised Dan Cohen confidentiality. However, the reporters did not maintain confidentiality and Cohen’s name appeared in the newspaper stories covered by the reporters, leading to his dismissal. In response, Cohen brought a lawsuit against both newspapers for a breach of contract, as they failed to uphold the promised confidentiality. During the trials, Cohen was awarded compensatory damages, the state appellate court affirmed the decision. However, the Supreme Court of Minnesota overturned the award upheld by the state appellate court. It contended that Cohen’s claims fell under the state’s “promissory estoppel” law, which generally prevents parties from retracting promises, especially in the absence of a formal contract between the contracting parties. In this case, it was held that the general state “promissory estoppel” law does not apply to the press, which is explicitly guaranteed under the First Amendment’s protection of the free press. The main issue in this case was whether promissory estoppel, recognised as a state law doctrine, could be the sole basis for claiming damages, considering the potential conflict with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in a 5-4 opinion, ruled that the state’s promissory law was generally applicable in other scenarios but did not extend to cover the press. The implementation of the state promissory law against the press, according to the ruling, did not require a more thorough examination than it would for other individuals or entities.

There exists a presumption in law that the parties to the contract, who have suffered losses due to a breach of contract, have a duty to take rational actions in order to minimize the losses occurring as a result of such a breach of contract, a principle commonly known as the duty to mitigate under contract law. The principle demands that the non-breaching party undertake reasonable initiatives to mitigate the extent of the losses incurred by them. For instance, there is a contract entered into between Party A and Party B for the delivery of a specific type of raw material on a certain agreed date. If, in this situation, party B fails to deliver the goods within the agreed timeframe, it amounts to a breach of contract. Now, as per the presumption of law, party A has a duty to minimize the losses it has incurred due to the breach of contract by party B. Some of the crucial measures that could be taken by party A to mitigate the extent of damages could include looking for a replacement supplier who could possibly deliver the required raw material within a specified time limit. Additionally, party A can take initiative to explore substitute goods, which might not be an exact substitute but meet the requirements to some extent from the original specification.

Ignorance on the part of the non breaching parties in taking appropriate measures to mitigate the losses incurred by them could affect the monetary compensation they could actually retrieve from the breaching party. If, as a result of such non mitigation of losses, the loss suffered by the non-breaching party increases, in such a situation, the court might reduce the damages awarded to them. The main motive behind this principle is to make the parties realise they should act reasonably and responsibly to lessen the harm caused as a consequence of a breach of contract, rather than simply allowing damages to accumulate.

Specific performance

In situations where the damages awarded by the court to the aggrieved party are deemed inadequate and fail to serve the interests of justice, the court may order specific performance of the contract. A specific performance clause refers to that part of the contract in which the party who has breached the contract is obligated to fulfill the terms, duties, and obligations outlined in the contract to the best of their abilities. Generally, specific performance is rarely awarded by the court, particularly in matters related to real estate, where the breaching party must fulfill the terms of the contract to the best of their abilities. For example, let’s consider a scenario where both parties, Party A and Party B, enter into an agreement. In this agreement, Party A commits to selling an antique piece of artwork to Party B. However, during the course of the agreement, Party A withdraws and decides not to proceed with the promised sale of the artwork, despite a valid contract between the parties. As Party A breaches the contract by failing to fulfill their promise, Party B, the aggrieved party, can seek specific performance of the contract. Under specific performance, the court can mandate that Party A fulfill their obligations by transferring ownership of the antique piece of artwork to Party B, as originally agreed upon in the contract. Specific performance is granted to aggrieved parties when the loss suffered cannot be adequately compensated through monetary means alone. In the case mentioned above, since the artwork is of antique nature, monetary damages alone may not sufficiently compensate Party B for the loss of this particular piece. Therefore, by awarding specific performance of the contract, the court compels the defaulting party to fulfill their contractual obligation in a manner that goes beyond mere financial compensation.

In Leonard v. Pepsico, (1999), during the 1990s, the defendant company, Pepsico, implemented a loyalty marketing scheme where customers earned Pepsi points with each purchase of Pepsi products. According to the scheme, customers could redeem these points for various prizes. As part of their advertising campaign, Pepsico aired a commercial suggesting that customers could obtain an AV-8B Harrier Jump Jet, a military fighter craft used by the US Navy and US Marine Corps, in exchange for 7,000,000 points earned through Pepsi purchases. The plaintiff, John Leonard, decided to obtain the 7,000,000 points needed for the Harrier Jump Jet not through product purchases but by writing a check for $700,008.50, a method permissible under the company’s rules. However, when Leonard expected Pepsico to deliver the jet, the company refused, arguing that the commercial was merely hyperbolic advertising. Leonard filed a lawsuit against Pepsico, claiming breach of contract and seeking specific performance. He alleged that the commercial constituted an offer to a unilateral contract under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. The main issue before the court was whether the commercial constituted a genuine offer or if it was just hyperbole. The court ruled that the commercial did not constitute a valid offer for a unilateral contract under Section 26 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. This section specifies that commercials, whether through display, sign, handbill, newspaper, radio, or television, are not to be construed as offers to sell. The court opined that even if the commercial was deemed an offer, no reasonable person could believe that Pepsico intended to provide a $23,000,000 jet for $700,000, especially considering its military use. The court concluded that the commercial was a hyperbole and part of Pepsico’s marketing strategy to boost sales, not a genuine offer, and therefore, no contract existed between the parties. The court applied the Statute of Frauds, emphasizing the lack of a written agreement between the parties as a fundamental requirement for a valid contract.

Lumley v. Wagner, (1852) is a case concerning the specific performance of personal services. In this case, the plaintiff, Lumley, entered into a contract with the defendant, Johanna Wagner. Johanna, a professional opera singer, promised to perform in Lumley’s theatre for a three-month period. A specific clause in the contract explicitly prohibited Johanna from performing for other potential hirers during the contract with Lumley. However, Johanna breached the contract by agreeing to sing for Frederick Gye, the manager of Covent Garden Theatre, who offered her more money to perform in his theatre. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Johanna, seeking an injunction to compel her to abide by the contract’s terms, which required her to provide her personal services, i.e., singing exclusively for Lumley’s theatre and not for anyone else. The defendant argued that granting an injunction would essentially mean enforcing the contract specifically, even when specific performance is not an option in this situation. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him an injunction, even though doing so meant compelling the defendant to sing for Lumley against her will. The court established in this case that “in scenarios where the court does not have the jurisdiction to award specific performance of a contract in favor of the aggrieved party, it still possesses the authority to make it mandatory for the defaulters to fulfill their part of contractual obligations in their entirety and in the manner prescribed in the contract. The court and the law do not provide such defaulters with an easy way to breach contracts and evade their obligations, leaving the aggrieved party only with monetary damages awarded by the jury.”

Liquidated damages

Parties choosing to enter into a legally binding contract can also use the option of liquidated damages provisions. Liquidated damages refer to a predetermined amount during contract formation to be paid if a breach occurs in the near future. This amount serves as compensation for the injured party, recovering damages caused by the breaching party. The provisions for liquidated damages can be employed by parties to avoid the time-consuming process of calculating actual damages resulting from a breach. However, such predetermined clauses shall be promptly rejected by the court if they are, in any way, attempting to serve as a replacement for punitive damages or if they are excessively unfair or unreasonable. For example, suppose Company A contracts with Company B to develop a custom software application critical to its business operations. Both parties recognize that any delays in delivering the software could result in significant financial losses for Company A. To address this concern, the contract includes a provision stating that if Company B fails to deliver the software by the agreed-upon deadline, they will pay liquidated damages of $500 for each day of delay. This predetermined amount is a reasonable estimate of the potential losses that Company A might incur due to delayed implementation, including disruption to business operations and potential revenue loss. In the event that Company B fails to meet the deadline, Company A can enforce the liquidated damages clause, and Company B would be obligated to pay $500 for each day beyond the agreed-upon delivery date. This predetermined amount serves as a measure of compensation without requiring Company A to prove the specific monetary losses incurred due to the delay in court.

Restitution as a remedy for the breach of contract

Restitution is a remedy available to the injured party in the event of a breach of contract under the law of contract. It entails the act of restoring or returning something to its rightful owner. The remedy of restitution differs significantly from damages in contract law, where parties seek monetary compensation for financial losses incurred resulting from a breach. In contrast, parties seeking restitution demand the restoration or return of any piece of land or money to the plaintiff that might have been given to the breaching party at the time of contract formation. The main objective behind a court awarding restitution is to reinstate the position of the injured party- the position enjoyed by the party before the contract was breached. The primary goal of the injured party seeking restitution as a remedy from the court for the breach of contract is to recover the unfair profits, gains or advantages earned by the breaching party under the contract. The primary objective is to reverse any unjust enrichment that the breaching party may have gained at the expense of the non-breaching party.

The remedy of restitution is strongly influenced by the legal principle of unjust enrichment. The concept of unjust enrichment becomes relevant in the event of a breach of contract, where the party breaching the contract is unduly advantaged or is enriched at the expense of the injured party. The concept of unjust enrichment aims to prevent the party that benefited from such enrichment due to a breach of contract from retaining those benefits unfairly at the expense of the injured party. The principle of unjust enrichment is typically considered in situations where there is no legally enforceable contract between the parties or when a party fails to fulfill contractual obligations, resulting in a breach of contract. In such cases, one party may have received a benefit that would be unfair to retain without compensating the other party. The primary goal is to prevent parties from gaining unfair profits or advantages at the expense of other parties. In order to substantiate a case of unjust enrichment, typically the following elements need to be satisfied.

Firstly, one of the parties to the contract must have been unduly advantaged or received a benefit from the breach, such as money, property, services, or some other valuable consideration.
Secondly, the injured party should have incurred significant loss or deprivation due to this enrichment to substantiate a case of unjust enrichment.
Thirdly, the enriched party must lack legal justification or valid grounds to retain the benefit without providing compensation to the deprived party.

For instance, a contract was entered into between party A and party B, wherein party A promised to deliver a customised piece of furniture to party B within a specified timeframe. In consideration of the delivery of the customised piece of furniture, party B has already paid $10,000 to party A. However, party A does not fulfill its promise as per the contract, failing to deliver the customised piece of furniture to party B, resulting in a breach of contract. In this scenario, the aggrieved party, party B, can seek the remedy of restitution against the breaching party, party A. The court awarding restitution can order party A to return the monetary value of $10,000 that had already been paid by party B to party A as consideration for the delivery of the agreed goods and services as per the terms of the contract. The remedy of restitution is generally awarded with the motive of reinstating party B to the position it was in before entering into the contract with party A. It also aims to prevent party A from unjustly benefiting from the payment already made by party B without fulfilling their promise to deliver the agreed goods and services. Restitution in the above-mentioned example refers to the recovery of $10,000, which was paid as a consideration in advance by party B to party A, preventing party A from gaining unfair benefits and advantages at the expense of party B by breaching the contract.

In Bloomgarden v. Coyer (1973), Henry Bloomgarden, appointed as President of Socio-Dynamics Industries, an advisory and research organization, facilitated meetings between investor David Carley and real estate developers Coyer and Guy. The purpose was to discuss strategies for enhancing a segment of the Georgetown waterfront in Washington D.C., with the potential for Carley to invest in the project. Bloomgarden also arranged a meeting between the defendant group and representatives of Inland Steel Company to discuss their development project. During these arrangements, Bloomgarden did not mention any finder’s fee. However, when the defendant group and Inland Steel Company later entered into a contract for their development project, Bloomgarden began demanding a finder’s fee. After the parties refused, he filed a lawsuit against the defendants. The main issue in this case was whether arranging meetings between parties without prior disclosure constituted a quasi contract, entitling Bloomgarden to a finder’s fee. For a contract to be considered a quasi contract, two essential elements must be present. First, the services must be performed in situations where the recipient reasonably believes and implies that the services were carried out specifically for them and not gratuitously for someone else. Second, the services must be of benefit and advantage to the recipient. The court held that since the plaintiff did not explicitly state or indicate throughout the transactions that he expected a finder’s fee, and his services were not gratuitous, he was not eligible to receive such fees. It was concluded that a quasi contract does not even qualify as an actual contract but is merely a duty imposed on someone under specific conditions to repay another party and prevent unjust enrichment.

In the case of Lee v. Foote, (1984), heard an appeal from the petitioner. The appeal contested the trial court’s decision, which rejected the petitioner’s claim for awarding compensatory damages against the defendant for breaching an express contract entered into between the petitioner and the defendant for the performance of specific services. The contract pertained to the exchange of services and was made orally by the parties. In this agreement,Lee, the petitioner, agreed to perform carpentry work for Foote, and in return, Foote, the defendant, had to perform plumbing work for Lee.

According to the agreed contract, Lee partially fulfilled his promise by completing some of the carpentry work for Foote. However, Foote never commenced the plumbing work at Lee’s place, further alleging that Lee intentionally obstructed him by hiring other people to perform the plumbing work at his house. The trial court concluded that Foote had breached the contract without any valid justification.

Lee claimed $15,000 as the market value for rendering carpentry services for Foote and sought $5,000 as damages for the delay caused by Foote, allegedly affecting Lee’s job schedule. Foote did not agree to pay the fixed amount of $15,000 as per the market price in response. The trial court, however, was of the view that the damages Lee was seeking from Foote should primarily constitute the cost of employing other people for the plumbing work initially assigned to Foote. Since Lee failed to provide evidence of this cost, the court awarded him only nominal damages of one dollar.

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, Lee filed an appeal against the court’s ruling, which granted him only nominal damages. The judgement in this case stated that when a contract, particularly one expressly defined, has been repudiated or breached due to non performance of a substantial and essential part of the contractual obligations by one party, the monetary value of the plaintiff’s partial performance of the obligations of the contract can be restored by awarding restitution. This serves as an alternative to pursuing damages through an action on the contract. In the case, the court refers to Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 371, which elucidates how the value to be sought as restitution by the parties could be measured. It provides two ways: firstly, a reasonable value shall be measured and affixed based on the expenses incurred by the plaintiff to have that task done by another individual. Secondly, an amount could be determined or measured based on the effective rise in the value of the defendant’s estates or interests- based on what is deemed fair and just.

The Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia addressed cross-appeals challenging the court’s ruling in favour of the plaintiff under an express contract entered into between the parties for the purpose of rendering services in the case of Sterling v. Marshall, (1947). The plaintiff initiated the lawsuit against the defendant to recover the value of engineering services rendered, as stipulated in the contract. The plaintiff had already partially fulfilled their obligation to provide engineering services under the contract when the defendant breached it. In this case, it was held that the remedy of restitution is available to the plaintiff to retore the value of services rendered under an express. This holds true even if the duties arising from the contract had been partially performed at the time of the defendant’s breach. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a reasonable sum for the services endered according to the terms of the contract.

In Aiken v. United Broadcasting, (1968), both the petitioner and the defendant had entered into a contract wherein the petitioner promised to perform some printing work in return for the radio advertising services that were to be rendered to the petitioner by the defendant. However, the defendant did not fulfill his promise of rendering advertising services to the petitioner and breached the contract. The petitioner initiated a lawsuit against the defendant,claiming the sum to be granted for performing his part of the obligations in the contract for printing services to the defendant. The Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, ruled in this case that in a contract where parties agree to exchange services, if either party fails to fulfill their obligations, the non-breaching party is entitled to a monetary judgment. Additionally, the court held that if the payment for these services is specified to be made in a form other than money, such as goods or tangible items, and the breaching party doesn’t adhere to the agreed form of payment, the non-breaching party can request payment in cash. The amount eligible for restoration through the remedy of restitution should always be determined based on the fair value of the work or service rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant. This determination is made independently of the contract price, rate, or any other terms specified in the original contract.

In the case of TVL Associates v. A&M Construction Corp., (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia elucidated the objective behind awarding the remedy of restitution to the aggrieved party. When a party is granted restitution, it implies that the party is entitled to restore the undue benefits that the breaching party gained by breaching the contract at the expense of the aggrieved party. The main motive is to reinstate the aggrieved party to the position it enjoyed before the occurrence of such a breach of contract by the other party. Section 373 of the Restatement Second of Contracts addresses the remedy of restitution when a party breaches the contract. According to Section 373, in the event of a contract breach the aggrieved party is entitled to the remedy of restitution. However, the section also outlines certain exceptions where the remedy of restitution shall not be available to the aggrieved party. The remedy of restitution empowers the aggrieved party to recover any undue benefits that the breaching party might have gained through partial performance or reliance. However, if the only “unfulfilled duty” on the part of the breaching party is a sum of money due to the injured party, even though the injured party has fulfilled all contractual obligations arising from the contract, the injured party would not be entitled to the remedy of restitution in this scenario.

Reliance as a remedy for a breach of contract

The remedy of reliance operates quite differently from other remedies that originate from the classical theory of contracts. This theory assumes that agreements consist of promises which are recognized and enforceable by law. However, such agreements are not merely promises; rather, they are based on the reciprocity of promises. In these agreements, one party promises to provide a benefit to the other party, who, in return, promises to pay for that benefit in exchange. Thus, such agreements are legally binding and give rise to certain contractual obligations that need to be fulfilled by the parties to the contract. The remedy of reliance is granted to aggrieved parties who place trust in and rely on the statements, actions, and misrepresentations made by another party to the contract in the event of a breach of contract. Unlike other remedies, the remedy of reliance is primarily based on the legal concept of “presumption of responsibility”, which implies that parties to the contract assume certain responsibilities attached to specific conduct or consequences, and the parties might be held liable if they fail to meet the expectations associated with that responsibility. In the context of contract law, the “assumption of responsibility” can be seen in situations where parties may not explicitly promise to perform certain actions, but they agree to proceed with an understanding that each assumes responsibility for a particular aspect of the agreement. This concept is associated with the reliance theory of contracts, where parties base their actions on mutual understandings and assumptions rather than explicit promises. If one party fails to uphold their assumed responsibility, they may be held legally accountable for any resulting harm or damages. The main objective of the courts in awarding the remedy of reliance to the non-breaching party is to reinstate that party to the position they would have held if they had not relied on the promises or misrepresentation made to them by the breaching party.

For example, Party A plans to build a suite hotel and verbally expresses this intention to Party B, a contractor whom Party A eventually hires for the construction work. Party B agrees to the agreement. Relying on party A’s promise, party B starts preparations for the hotel’s construction, such as employing labor and purchasing construction materials. Before a formal contract can be entered into between party A and party B, party A suddenly changes their mind about proceeding with the suite hotel project. However, party B has already incurred expenses, having hired labor and procured it based on the promise made to him by party A. In this situation, party B is empowered to bring a legal action against party A for the expenditure incurred while trusting and relying on party A’s promise, even though a formal contract had not yet been entered into and it was breached by party A. In the event of a legal suit against party A, the court will likely award reliance damages to party B to reinstate them to the position they would have held if the promises had been fulfilled by party A. This typically involves compensating party B for the expenses incurred in purchasing construction materials and making payments to the laborers. The primary goal is to prevent party A from gaining undue benefits at the expense of party B’s reliance. In this illustration, the law aims to safeguard party B’s reasonable reliance on party A’s promise, which encouraged party B to make necessary arrangements and take actions in preparation for the suite hotel construction contract.

Section 349 of the Restatement Second of Contracts discusses damages based on the reliance interest, providing aggrieved parties with an alternative to seeking damages based on their reliance on the agreement rather than merely claiming damages as outlined in Section 347 of Restatement Second of Contracts. Reliance damages under this section include the actual personal costs or any prior arrangements made by the aggrieved party to fulfil their part of the deal. However, if the opposing party can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the losses incurred by the aggrieved party were inevitable, regardless of whether the contract was performed or not on their part, the amount for such damages shall be deducted from the calculation of the actual reliance damages to be awarded to the aggrieved party.

In the case of SULLIVAN v. O’CONNOR, (1973), the petitioner, Alice Sullivan, a professional entertainer, had entered into a contract with Dr. James O’Connor to perform a plastic surgery on her nose with the aim of enhancing her appearance. Alice Sullivan underwent two procedures deliberately designed to improve her appearance, but they failed, resulting in a botched and disfigured nose, which significantly deteriorated her looks. Furthermore, Dr. James OO’Connordecided to conduct a third procedure, promising Alice Sullivan to remodel her nose and fix the issues arising from the previous two surgeries. However, the third surgery performed by him also ended in failure. Alice Sullivan brought a suit against Dr. James O’Connor for breach of contract and gross medical negligence. The Court accepted that there had been a breach of contract but rejected the petitioner’s claim of medical negligence. The Jury, following the instructions of the trial judge, decided to award damages to Alice Sullivan for the breach of contract. Additionally, they ordered Dr. James O’Connor to make necessary reimbursements for the personal costs she incurred. Furthermore, the jury awarded compensation for the emotional and physical suffering caused by the botched surgeries and the permanent disfigurement of her nose. The decision explicitly considered the nature of her profession, given that she was an entertainer, where looks play a crucial role. Dr. James O’Connor challenged the jury’s decision to award him damages that exceeded the actual personal costs incurred by Alice Sullivan and filed an appeal against the damages awarded to him.

In this case, Alice Sullivan, the petitioner was awarded reliance damages by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The legal remedy of reliance is designed with the motive to reinstate the aggrieved party back to the position they held previously before such a contract had been formally entered into by the parties to the contract and to reimburse the aggrieved party for the losses incurred by relying on the promises made by the other party to the agreement. Under the American Contract Law, reliance damages have a much wider scope, as they not only cover regular monetary losses but also any kind of physical or mental distress that has been caused to the aggrieved party by relying on the promises, statements or actions made by another party to the agreement, specifically when such detriments are anticipatable. It should be noted that Alice Sullivan had entered into a contract with Dr. James O’Connor only for the first two cosmetic surgeries. She agreed to endure the pain and suffering arising from those two procedures. However, she consented to undergo the third procedure, relying on the doctor’s promise to remodel her botched nose. Unfortunately, the third procedure failed, causing her additional distress both physically and mentally, resulting in a breach of contract. The court held that Sullivan was entitled to seek compensation for the additional suffering caused by the doctor’s breach of contract. The awarded compensation as damages would encompass the physical and mental suffering associated with subsequent corrective procedures, along with personal expenditures incurred by Sullivan.

Expectation interest as a remedy for a breach of contract

Expectation interest is the most common type of legal remedy available to aggrieved parties in the event of a breach of contract. This remedy, in essence, aids the aggrieved party to achieve all the objectives and interests it had anticipated from the contract it entered into. Thai is contingent upon the contract being performed to the best of the breaching party’s ability in the event of a breach. The law aims to safeguard the interests and hopes of the parties associated with the complete performance of the contract. However, if either party to the contract ends up breaching it, the remedy of expectation interest under American contract law primarily focuses on making necessary reimbursements to the aggrieved party. The motive is to reinstate the aggrieved party to a position they would have held if the contract had been successfully performed by the breaching party.

The primary purpose of expectation interest is to provide the desired advantages or benefits that the aggrieved party anticipated from a contract with the opposite party. However, it comes with reasonable preconditions attached to it. One such condition is that the non breaching party must have made ceratin prior arrangements related to the anticipation of deriving interest from the deal. Furthermore, since expectation interests represent the practical goals that the aggrieved party anticipated achieving, the breaching party cannot be held liable for inevitable or unforeseen situations beyond their control. In fact, they can only be held liable for the actions they had already anticipated before entering into the contract. It should be noted that expectation damages are purely restorative in nature and not punitive.

Section 347 of the Restatement Second of Contracts outlines the procedure for measuring expectation interest in the event of a breach of contract by the non breaching party. According to this provision, the non breaching party is entitled to claim damages related to their expectation interest. However, this right is subject to ceratin limitations provided under Sections 350, 351, 352 & 353 of the Restatement Second of Contracts. This includes firstly, the decrease in the value of the other party’s performance due to its failure or deficiency. Secondly, any additional detriment, such as ancillary or secondary costs and special damages arising from the breach of contract, shall be included when calculating expectation interest. Thirdly, any duties or obligations intentionally avoided by the injured party to bear additional costs, which were party of their performance in the contract, cannot be claimed from the opposite party. Therefore these must be deducted when calculating the actual expectation interest amount to be awarded to the injured party.

For an example Suppose Company A and Company B enter into a contract for the purchase and delivery of a custom-made machine. The contract specifies the type of machine, the delivery date, and the price. If Company B fails to deliver the machine as agreed, and Company A incurs additional costs by having to purchase a similar machine from another supplier at a higher price, Company A can seek expectation interest as a remedy. In this case, expectation interest would involve Company B compensating Company A for the difference between the contract price and the higher price paid to the alternative supplier. The purpose is to put Company A in the position it would have been in had the contract been fulfilled as agreed. So, if the original contract price was $50,000, but Company A had to purchase a similar machine for $60,000 due to Company B’s breach, Company A’s expectation interest would be $10,000—the additional amount spent to cover the shortfall caused by the breach. This compensation aims to fulfill the party’s expectation of receiving the performance promised in the contract.

In the landmark case of Robinson v. Harman, (1848), the legal principle of expectation interest was initially established. In this case, Mr. Harman entered into a contract with Mr. Robinson, offering in writing to sell a 21-year lease for a dwelling house situated in Croydon. However, Mr. Harman changed his mind about proceeding further with the contract when he realised that the property was more valuable than the agreed-upon price. Up to that point, Mr. Robinson was unaware that Mr. Harman only possessed partial entitlement to the lease property and lacked the rightful title to grant the lease, as the property was actually held by the trustees. Upon discovering this, Mr. Robinson took legal action against Mr. Harman for breach of contract, seeking damages for the losses incurred due to misinformation.The Court Of Exchequer Camber ruled in this case that when a party intentionally enters into an agreement with another party for sale of lease deed knowing that he does not have a rightful title over the lease property party for the sale of a lease deed, knowing that they do not have legitimate title over the lease property to grant such a lease, the injured party is entitled to claim damages or compensation. These damages are not limited to the personal costs incurred but extend to compensation for the loss of the intended agreement. Importantly, the defendant cannot later argue, through a plea of payment of money into court, that the injured party was aware of the title defect. This ruling reaffirmed and clarified this legal principle, emphasizing that those who commit to fulfilling a contract must bear the consequences if they fail to deliver as promised. In cases where a valid lease is promised with knowledge of not having a legitimate title, resulting in the other party suffering losses due to a breach of contract, the breaching party is liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the trusting party.

Contractual limitations on damages under the American contract law

Contractual limitations on damages typically refer to agreements entered into by the parties wherein they explicitly limit the types and amounts of damages that can be claimed- something additional beyond what statutory law would have granted in the ordinary course of time. The restrictions incorporated by the parties in the contract are distinct from other types of limitations, such as exemption clauses or liability limitations. These clauses aim to exempt the parties, either wholly or partially, from contractual or tortious liabilities arising from the contract. Various types of contractual limitations on damages exist, including foreseeability limitations, mitigation limitations, and certainty limitations.

Foreseeability limitations under American contract law are applied to agreements where the entering parties have anticipated damages in the event of a breach of contract in the near future, enabling them to claim damages from the breaching party. The principle is grounded in the notion that damages should be a direct outcome of the apprehended circumstances resulting from a breach of contract to be eligible for a claim. Such limitations allow parties to claim damages only for losses that were anticipated or were within the contemplation of both parties when initially entering into the contract. If this is not the case, damages are considered too speculative or too indirect and are not eligible for recovery.

There is a presumption under contract law, particularly in the event of a breach, that it is the duty of the injured party to have taken reasonable actions in order to mitigate or minimize the losses resulting from the breach of contract. Mitigation limitations have their origins in the same principle, referring to certain limitations or considerations related to the duty of mitigation.

On the other hand, certainty limitations focus on the idea that damages claimed by the injured party should be closely linked to the breach, meaning the damages should be a direct outcome of the anticipated circumstances resulting from a breach of contract in order to be claimed. The damages claimed should be resonably valid, certain, and not too remote or indirect. This principle ensures that the damages sought are based on concrete and identifiable losses rather than uncertain or hypothetical future events.

Section 350 of the Restatement Second of Contracts delineates the criteria for avoidability as a limitation on damages. According to the provision, the injured party is not entitled to claim damages for a loss unless and until the prerequisite conditions provided under Subsection (2) are satisfied, and it was positively possible for them to prevent the loss without undergoing any additional risks, undue hazards, burden, or humiliation. However, if the injured party had undertaken reasonable measures to mitigate the risk, they could not be denied the right to seek damages under the provision outlined in Subsection (1).

Section 352 of the Restatement Second of Contracts outlines the concept of uncertainty as a limitation on damages. According to this particular section, the amount claimed as damages for the losses incurred by the injured party cannot exceed the amount that can be reasonably established based on the available evidence.

Section 351 of the Restatement Second of Contracts delineates the concept of unforeseeability and related limitations on damages. If the party breaching the contract had no valid reason to contemplate or anticipate the occurrence of a particular loss closely linked to or likely to be the direct outcome of the breach of the contract when the contract was initially formulated between the parties, damages cannot be claimed for that specific loss. However, a loss may be considered foreseeable if it is a probable result of the breach, either in the ordinary course of events or due to special circumstances beyond the ordinary course that the party in breach had reason to know about. Additionally, the court has the authority to restrict damages for foreseeable losses. This could involve excluding recovery for loss of profits, permitting recovery only for loss incurred in reliance on the contract, or taking other measures if the court determines that justice requires it in order to avoid providing disproportionately high compensation in the given circumstances.

For example, suppose Company A hires Company B to provide a consulting service to improve its business operations. The contract between the two companies includes a provision that limits the liability of Company B for any damages resulting from its services to a maximum of $50,000. If Company B fails to deliver the promised consulting service and, as a result, Company A incurs losses amounting to $100,000, the contractual limitation on damages would cap the amount recoverable by Company A at $50,000. Even though Company A’s actual losses may exceed this amount, the contract expressly limits the damages that Company A can seek from Company B to the specified maximum. In this scenario, the contractual limitation on damages serves to define the extent of financial responsibility and liability agreed upon by both parties in advance. It establishes a predetermined limit on the damages recoverable in case of a breach, providing a measure of predictability and risk allocation.

In the landmark case of Hadley v. Baxendale, (1854) the courts have emphasized the concept that for the inured party to claim damages, such damages must be foreseeable by the breaching party. In this case, the plaintiff, Mr. Hadley, owned a flour mill but couldn’t carry out his daily business operations due to issues that occurred in the machines, specifically a broken crankshaft. Mr. Hadley entered into a contract with Baxendale, the defendant, to deliver a crucial replacement for the mechanical component (the broken crankshaft). However, Baxendale failed to transport the replacement mechanical component on the agreed-upon date under the contract due to negligence on the part of the defendant’s delivery company. Mr. Hadley decided to bring legal action against Baxendale to seek damages for the disrupted production activities of the mill caused by the delayed delivery of the replacement mechanical component. The court, in its judgement, upheld that Mr. Hadley was not entitled to any damages for the loss of production during the five days until the delivery was made. The decision was grounded in the principle that, for the injured party to claim damages, such damages must be foreseeable by the breaching party and reasonably foreseeable or contemplated by both parties at the time of formulating the contract for the damages to be recoverable. The court stated that damages could only be claimed if they were within the contemplation of both parties as the probable result of a breach of the contract. More than 160 years after the Hadley case, American contract law has adopted a similar stance, prohibiting the awarding of damages that were not resonably foreseeable to bothe parties when entering into the contract. This principle is reflected in various legal sources, such as Section 351 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and Article 74 of the (CISG) United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International sale of Goods. In essence, the Hadley rule serves as a foundational concept in contract law, emphasizing the importance of forseeability in determining the scope of recoverable damages. It ensures that parties are only held liable for losses that could have been reasonably anticipated at the time of contract formation. This principle provides a framework for assessing damages in contract disputes, promoting fairness and predictability in contractual relationships.

Special remedies for a breach of contract under the American contract law

Special remedies under American contract law refer to specific legal measures, solutions, or relief available as recourse to the injured party in the event of a breach of contract. These remedies are distinct in nature from ordinary damages awarded to the injured party, such as reliance interest, expectation interest, monetary damages, restitution, etc., for the breach of contract. These remedies are crafted specifically with the motive of addressing the harm caused by the breach and provide the non-breaching party with relief. Special remedies are distinct from common remedies, such as monetary damages, and are often considered specific and tailored to the circumstances of the breach.

Specific performance is a special legal remedy accessible to the injured party in the event of a breach of contract. Through specific performance, courts possess the authority to issue injunction orders against the breaching party, compelling them to fulfill the unmet duties and obligations arising from the contract. This particular remedy is based on the legal principle that parties entering into contracts must fulfill their promised obligations; if they fail to do so, the law compels them to fulfill the contractual commitments they made. Sections 357-369 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts explicitly delineate the instances where specific performance is applicable. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, both buyers and sellers can be awarded specific performance as a remedy for a breach of contract. Sellers can utilize this remedy, provided under Section 2-709 of the Uniform Commercial Code, titled “Action for the Price”, allowing the seller to compel a buyer who failed to make a payment to fulfill the payment obligation. Buyers, on the other hand, have a more limited recourse under Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-716, which mirrors the restrictions outlined in the Restatement, particularly regarding “unique” goods. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) also includes provisions for the remedy of specific performance. In this context, in the event of non payment by the buyer, the seller can seek payment under Article 62, similar to Uniform Commercial Code section 2-709, while Article 46(1) enables a buyer to demand performance from the seller unless they’ve chosen an “inconsisitent” remedy. For an example in a transaction related to real estate, if a seller agrees to sell a unique piece of property, such as a historic landmark, and then attempts to back out of the deal, the buyer may seek specific performance. In such a case, a court could order the seller to go through with the sale as outlined in the contract, rather than simply awarding monetary damages. This is because the property is considered unique, and money alone may not adequately compensate the buyer for the loss of such a distinctive asset.

Liquidated damages refer to a pre-agreed amount specified in a contract that the parties decide upon in case of a breach. “liquidated” means a predetermined sum. If a contract labels these damages as a “penalty,” American courts typically won’t enforce the clause. The Restatement (Second) of Contracts, specifically Section 356, outlines rules for enforcing liquidated damages. According to these rules, the agreed-upon amount must reasonably estimate anticipated or challenging-to-prove losses. For contracts involving the sale of goods, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in Section 2-718 aligns with common-law restrictions on liquidated damages. Additionally, the UCC includes a “statutory liquidated damages” rule under specific circumstances. Interestingly, even when a contract lacks a liquidated damages provision, the UCC allows a party to retain a portion or the entirety of a prepaid deposit after the other party breaches. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) doesn’t specifically address liquidated damages. This silence creates the possibility that a court might apply its own local laws on the matter when dealing with CISG, even though the CISG is otherwise applicable. In simpler terms, liquidated damages are agreed-upon compensation for a potential breach, but for courts to enforce them, the agreed-upon amount must be a reasonable estimate of expected losses, and it shouldn’t function as a penalty. Different legal frameworks, like the UCC and CISG, provide guidelines in this regard. For example, suppose that in a contract related to construction, a construction company agrees to complete a project by a specific date, and both parties recognize that delays would result in significant financial losses for the client. To address this, they include a provision in the contract stipulating that if the construction company fails to meet the deadline, they will pay a predetermined amount, let’s say $1,000 per day of delay, as liquidated damages. This agreed-upon liquidated damages amount is intended to approximate the actual harm or loss suffered by the client due to the delay. It provides a measure of predictability and avoids the need for the injured party to prove the extent of their damages in court if a breach occurs.

Conclusion

The law for contracts in the USA provides a plethora of remedies as a legal recourse in the event of a breach of contract, which might be monetary (damages) or non-monetary, such as an injunction or restraining order awarded to the aggrieved party, as the case may be. However, it’s not just about the remedies but also the limitations attached to them that shall be taken into consideration while determining and awarding damages to the aggrieved party. Moreover, it shall be noted that the nature of the contract, specific principles at play in certain matters, the applicability of law (federal or state), and the platform where such disputes are to be addressed and settled vary case by case. In the event of a breach of contract, when one of the parties in a legally binding agreement does not perform or fulfill their part of contractual obligations leading a breach of contract, they often seek damages as a remedy, which is monetary in nature known as monetary damages. In this case, the aggrieved party is compensated with money for the loss they had suffered because of such a breach. Expectation damages, reliance damages, and restitution are some of the common monetary damages available as a remedy to the aggrieved party. Awarding expectation damages is intended to reinstate the aggrieved party to a position they would have held if the contract had been successfully performed by the breaching party. On the other hand, reliance damages pertain to the compensation awarded by the court to a party who, acting reasonably and prudently, placed trust in a promise that the law recognizes and enforces. The proponents of this theory argue that plaintiffs who placed trust in the defendant’s misrepresentation, which later led to a breach of contract, shall be entitled to compensation for the legitimate expenditures incurred by the plaintiffs due to their reliance or dependence on such misrepresentation. Restitution is a remedy available to the injured party in the event of a breach of contract under the law of contracts. It entails the act of restoring or returning something to its rightful owner. For remedies involving monetary damages, the interest rates shall be determined as per the provisions of statutory law unless the parties decide to include a specific clause within the contract regarding such differing pre-decided interest rates. Such interest rates might vary as per the particular state’s law that governs the dispute (with New York having a fixed interest rate of 9 percent, whereas, in Delaware, the rate of interest is fixed at 5 percent, different from the rate fixed by the Federal Reserve). The latter, equitable remedies, are awarded by the courts when the legal remedies are disproportionate or fail to serve justice to the aggrieved party. Such equitable remedies can be granted by the courts through means such as specific performance, injunctions, and restitution.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Do all contracts need to be documented to be valid?

No, it is not necessary for all contracts to be properly documented to be termed as valid contracts. Contracts can be either written or oral unless they fall under specific categories of contracts. However, contracts related to matters such as marriage, real estate, contracts that may take more than a year to be completed, agreements for the repayment of debts by the debtor to the creditor, contracts involving goods valued at $500 or more, and contracts related to an individual’s property and assets are all required to be mandatorily documented according to contract law in the USA.

What remedies are available as a recourse to an individual in the event of a breach of contract?

In the United States, parties dealing with a breach of contract have a range of remedies available, such as restitution, reliance, limitations on damages, special remedies, and the expectation of interest. However, a breach of contract could occur in different ways. Firstly, the parties may fail to perform their contractual obligations within the agreed-upon time specified in the contract, particularly in contracts involving the delivery of goods or services. Secondly, performing their obligations in a manner that deviates from the prescribed standards in the contract or not performing them at all entitles the aggrieved party to seek remedies.

What is a material breach of contract?

A material breach of a contract refers to the non-performance of an essential part of the contract. The consequences of a material breach can be serious, as it can significantly impact the benefits that the non-breaching party could have received if the essential part of the contract necessary for the successful completion had been performed by the breaching party in its entirety.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity