November 17 Briefs and Notes

November 17 Briefs and Notes - November 17, 2008 Measure of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: November 17, 2008 Measure of Restitution Interest If a sum of money is awarded to protect a party’s restitution interest, it may as justice requires be measured by either: • The reasonable value to the other party of what he received in terms of what it would have cost him to obtain it from a person in the claimant’s position, or • The extent to which the other party’s property has been increased in value or his other interests advanced. NON BREACHER RESTITUTION Problem 84 : K: 100,000 Cost: 100,000 Lose: 20,000 PP: 50,000 (Airport has control of the garage) If breacher has control over PP, then it goes under restitution. Because we are in a losing K, deduct the amount lost, 50k-20k= 30k (reliance) If you are going straight restitution, then you get 50k Problem 85 : K: 50K PP: 50K Cost: 100,000 Lose: 50k Client (breacher) has the benefit of 50k worth of attorney work Reliance Damage: 50K (restitution) – 50K (loss)= 0 Restitution: 50K When you have a losing K, you calculate reliance Damages and deduct the loss, then compare it to the restitution damages. Problem 86 : C. Breaching Plaintiff- limited by the K amount Britton v. Turner Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1834 Law: Facts: Plaintiff contracted defendant to work one year, from March 1831 to March 1832, for the payment of $120. But plaintiff, having no good cause, left that service without defendant’s consent. But no evidence offered of any damage arising from the plaintiff’s departure. Britton sued for the work he had done, and the jury awarded him $95. Reasoning: To the service that plaintiff had done defendant has choice to receive it or reject it. If he receives or has advantage from the service, he should pay for what he has benefited from the service, just like a person should pay for the part of merchandize he received and used, though the whole was never delivered. If the party receives the part performance from time to time, knowing the whole would never be performed; he should still pay for the performance he received. But if the party suffers damages more than what he benefits from the service of the party in breach, it is hard for the party in breach to get the restitution. Issue: Whether the plaintiff, party in breach, can be awarded the sum of $95 for the work he had done?...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/20/2009 for the course CONTRACTS 108 taught by Professor Cox during the Fall '08 term at McMaster University.

Page1 / 4

November 17 Briefs and Notes - November 17, 2008 Measure of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online