06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

_____________________<br />

Review Question 4. This case may seem overly technical on first read. Note<br />

that what the court faces is the same question that writers of “alternative history”<br />

novels have to face: What would the world be like if things had happened differently?<br />

Carefully consider the evidence the court discusses and note how the court goes about<br />

constructing a sort of parallel world. In proving damages, lawyers frequently must<br />

find ways to do this sort of thing.<br />

Review Question 5. Suppose you have a seller (such as General Motors was<br />

be<strong>for</strong>e its 2009 restructuring) that loses money on every transaction it enters into. Is<br />

it possible that such a seller would have damages if one of those losing contracts were<br />

breached? Maybe the seller should thank the breaching party <strong>for</strong> stemming its loss.<br />

The Leingang case below seems to suggest that there might actually be compensable<br />

damages, however. As you read Leingang, see if you can articulate why this is so.<br />

Your professor just might ask <strong>for</strong> your explanation in an upcoming class.<br />

_____________________<br />

LEINGANG v. CITY OF MANDAN WEED BOARD<br />

Supreme Court of North Dakota<br />

468 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 1991)<br />

LEVINE, J.<br />

Robert Leingang appeals from an award of damages <strong>for</strong> breach of contract. The<br />

issue is whether the trial court used the appropriate measure of damages. We hold it<br />

did not, and reverse and remand.<br />

The City of Mandan Weed Board awarded Leingang a contract to cut weeds on<br />

lots with an area greater than 10,000 square feet. Another contractor received the<br />

contract <strong>for</strong> smaller lots. During 1987, Leingang discovered that the Weed Board’s<br />

agent was improperly assigning large lots to the small-lot contractor. Leingang<br />

complained and the weed board assigned some substitute lots to him.<br />

Leingang brought a breach of contract action in small claims court and the City<br />

removed the action to county court. The City admitted that it had prevented<br />

Leingang’s per<strong>for</strong>mance under the contract and that the contract price <strong>for</strong> the lost<br />

work was $1,933.78. A bench trial was held to assess the damages suffered by<br />

Leingang.<br />

At trial, Leingang argued that the applicable measure of damages was the<br />

contract price less the costs of per<strong>for</strong>mance he avoided due to the breach. Leingang<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

UNIT 23: THE EXPECTATION INTEREST 485

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!