1 / 10

Chatlos and Excessive (?) Expectancies

Chatlos and Excessive (?) Expectancies. I n breach of contract cases courts prefer to award damages that implement the notion of “expectancy” – i.e., damages that put P in the position she would have been in if the contract had been performed

coral
Télécharger la présentation

Chatlos and Excessive (?) Expectancies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Chatlos and Excessive (?) Expectancies • In breach of contract cases courts prefer to award damages that implement the notion of “expectancy” – i.e., damages that put P in the position she would have been in if the contract had been performed • What measure of damages gives the Chatlos P its expectancy? • Why does the court use this measure to implement P’s expectancy instead of the difference between the value of the thing delivered and the bargained-for contract price?

  2. Has the Chatlosplaintiff recovered too much – is there such a thing as an excessive expectancy? • Wouldn’t P have had to pay $208K to get the computer D promised regardless of D’s misrepresentations? Why should P recover that amount from D instead of the difference between the value of the computer delivered ($6K) and the contract price ($46K)? • Arguments for and against P’s recovery? Should P’s be limited to reasonable expectancies or are there reasons to award expectancy even when it’s huge? • What could D’s have done to lower P’s damage award in this case?

  3. Bolles and Expectancy Damages • Like P in Chatlos, P wants difference between the value of the stock sold to him as described ($10/share X 4,000 shares) and value as delivered ($0) = $40,000 • Court gives P the difference between his actual expenditure for the stock ($1.50/share x 4,000 shares) and value as delivered ($0) = $6,000 • Unlike Chatlos, the court doesn’t give P the expected benefit of his bargain – Why? • Does it make sense to treat the Bolles & Chatlos P’s differently? When would you ever sue in tort as a result?

  4. Modern Changes to the Common Law Rule Against Expectancy Awards in Tort Cases: • Some states allow P to elect between reliance and expectancy losses in all fraud cases (e.g. Texas) • Restatement 2d of Torts § 549(2): Allows recovery of damages equivalent to benefit of the bargain in cases involving fraud in business transactions if damages are proved with reasonable certainty. • Majority of states apparently allow such recoveries • UCC §2-721: States that all remedies for “non-fraudulent breach” are also available for material misrepresentation or fraud cases involving the sale of goods. • Federal courts still tend to take approach similar to Bolles

  5. Consequential Damages – Buck v. Morrow • Two years into 5-year lease of pasture to Buck, Morrow (lessor) breached. • What is the measure of Buck’s contract damages? • What are Buck’s other damages? • Terminology: • General Damages: Refers to the value of what plaintiff lost from the original impact of defendant’s acts. • Consequential Damages: Refers to those damages that can (but do not have to) occur as a consequence of the initial loss.

  6. Standards for Consequential Damages – Common Law • Tort: Plaintiff can recover only those damages for which she can show D’s actions are the proximate cause. • Contract: Plaintiff can only recover those losses which are reasonably within the contemplation of the parties as a probable result of the breach. • What facts support Buck’s award of consequentials under this standard?

  7. Why does the distinction between general and consequential damages still matter? • Historic hostility to consequentials because they were thought to be more speculative, less certain, more remote, and more avoidable than general damages. • It’s unclear the extent to which market value measures are easier to prove or value than consequential damages. • Furthermore, the standards plaintiffs must meet in order to obtain consequential damages take care of some of the above concerns • As do certain other doctrines we will discuss later • Why, then, is there any reason to distinguish between consequential and general damages? • Special pleading requirements in FRCP and state analogs • Bargained-for remedies/limitations clauses/damage disclaimers

  8. Consequential Damages Under the UCC • UCC 1-305(a) expresses an ambivalence to consequential (or incidental) damages similar to the common law. UCC 1-305(a) allows recovery only if such damages are specifically provided for by UCC or other rule of law • BUT every section we discussed last week provides for such damages • Buyer’s Remedies – UCC 2-715 • Buyer gets incidentals under 2-715(1) and consequentialsunder 2-715(2) • What is the difference between the two and why are they treated differently? • Seller’s Remedies – UCC 2-710 • Seller get’s incidental damages but not consequentials (unlike buyer) – why not?

  9. Meinrath – Consequential Damages Stemming from Failure to Pay Money • P & D entered “Purchase and Sale Agreement.” D breached agreement by failing to pay certain “bonus compensation” • P seeks $300,000 in bonus compensation (general damages) • P seeks $770,000 in losses of invested capital and decline in the net worth of the businesses as a result of failure to pay the bonus compensation (consequential damages) • What does the court award instead of consequential damages?

  10. Meinrath, cont’d • Why do courts refuse to give consequentials for failure to pay money? • Are such damages really more remote and speculative? Were they here? • Erosion of the Meinrath rule: • Contracts to loan money • Insurers – bad faith refusal to settle • Majority rule in both instances is that P’s can get consequential damages from initial breach (even though they involve a failure to pay money)

More Related