Contracts: Breach of Contract and Remedies Case No. 93 DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CON
ID: 379756 • Letter: C
Question
Contracts: Breach of Contract and Remedies Case No. 93 DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTICONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES il Lithographing Corporation y. Dittler Brothers,Inc. Supreme Court, Nassau County 348 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1973), 76 Misc. 2d 145 oration (Harbor Hill) was in the FACTS: Plaintiff Harbor HillL Lithog business of arranging for the development of printed materials for its clients. It entered a contract with client Barnell Loft, Inc. (Barnell) to publish an advertising brochure for Barnell. Harbor Hill in turn entered a written contract with defendant Dittler Brothers, Inc. (Dittler), a printer, for the printing of the Barnell brochure. Dittler failed to deliver the printed brochure by the date required in Dittler's contract with Harbor Hill. As a result Harbor Hill could not deliver the brochures to Barnell on the date required by Harbor Hill's contract with Barnell. Barnell therefore refused to accept or pay for the brochures. Harbor Hill sued Dittler for breach of contract. A jury trial was held. Dittler was found liable for breach and Harbor Hill was awarded a sum of money that did not include its lost profits on its contract with Barnell. In this proceeding, Harbor Hill sought to recover as consequential damages the profits it would have made on its contract with Barnell had the brochure been delivered on ti Dittler denied liability claiming it did not know Harbor Hill intended to sell the brochues to Barnell and therefore could not have foreseen Harbor Hill's lost profits. me.Explanation / Answer
Answer 1:
The basic objective of law’s in granting breach of contract is to put the injured party in the position where it would have been, if the breach of contract was not done. In the given case the decision made by law entitles Harbor to collect the profits that it lost by Dittler’s breach of contract from Harbor. This judgement aims to put Harbor in the position where it would have been if the breach of contract was not done.
Answer 2:
If Dittler Brothers did not and had no reason to know that Harbor Hill intended to sell the brochure to customers, It would have been special circumstance in which the breaching party i.e. Dittler Brothers would only liable for amount of injury they could foresee to arise generally to Harbor Hill and not for the resale profits lost by Harbor Hills.
Answer 3:
In case that Dittler brothers notified Harbor Hills before three weeks from date, that it could not perform by due date, and Harbor Hills could have had brochures printed by other company in this three weeks time, and deliver it to Barnell before the deadline. The scienerio would be different.
Because in special case of anticipatory breach, notice of repudiation may act as a waiver of performance by other party. However, in this case if Harbor Hills failed to utilize the service of second printer, it would not be able to recover lost profits from Dittler.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.