Select Page

University of Connecticut School of Law
Siegelman, Peter

I. Damages for Breach of Contract
a. Three Damage Interests
1. Hawkins v. McGee (botched hand surgery) p. 61
a) CaseLaw – utterance of words are done with the intention that they would be taken at face value by patient inducing them to consent to operation. D went beyond offering a medical opinion when offering a “perfect” hand
a. R 2d §347 p. 68
i. Measure of Damages in General
2. Nurse v. Barns (iron mills) p. 69
a) CL – court can award damages for expenditures based on reliance
a. R 2d §347 p. 68
i. Measure of Damages in General
3. J.O. Hooker v. Roberts Cabinet Co. (cabinets) p.71
a) CL – In calculation of damages, paying Δ’s storage and administrative costs would put him in a better position that if the contract had been performed. (Had to be paid anyway.) Lost profits from 4-day shutdown period incorporated into the total profit lost as well.
b) UCC §1-103 p. 78
a. Supplementary General Principles of Contract Law Applicable
c) UCC §2-102 p. 78
a. Scope; Certain Security and Other Transactions Excluded from this Article
d) UCC §2-105 p. 78
a. Definitions: Transferability; “Goods”…
e) UCC §2-106 p. 78
a. Definitions: “Contract”; “Agreement”; “Contract for Sale”; “Sale”; “Present Sale”…
4. Tongish v. Thomas (sunflower seeds) p.79
a) CL – faire market value minus seller’s originally contracted for price (difference btw two)
b) UCC §1-106 p. 84
a. Remedies To Be Liberally Administrated
c) UCC §2-712 p. 85
a. “Cover”; Buyer’s Procurement of Substitute Goods
d) UCC §2-713 p. 85
a. Buyer’s Damages For Non-Delivery or Repudiation
e) UCC §2-715 p. 85
a. Buyer’s Incidental and Consequential Damages
f) UCC §2-717 p. 85
a. Deduction of Damages From the Price
b. Three Limitations on Damages
– Remoteness of Foreseeability of Harm
5. Hadley v. Baxendale (delayed shaft) p. 86
a) CL – must be foreseeable. For special situations, damages can be awarded only if P informs D of the special situation or if the damages were reasonable foreseeable. Note that this encourages information sharing when deviating from a defa

K, but before it was concluded, so recoverable; can collect damages even prior to contract provided that it was a foreseeable loss due to breach
a. R 2d §352 p. 118
i. Uncertainty as a Limitation on Damages
10. Mistletoe Express Service v. Locke (canceled shipping service – losing K) p. 120
a) CL – Mistletoe had b. of p. in reliance interest to show Locke’s losses and have them deducted from amt of damages but did not prove anything so she gets full amt of preparatory expenditures
a. R 2d §349 p. 117
i. Damages Based on Reliance Interest
ii. Entitled to Reliance interest for expenditures made in preparation
– Avoidability of Harm
11. Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. (canceled bridge) p. 124
CL – π’s duty to do nothing to increase the damages flowing from breach (mitigate damages) after having been notified