This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: only have one pump. 2. In my opinion, Karla is liable for Leroy’s extra expenses in providing for the hogs. The reason: A breach of contract entitles the nonbreaching party to sue for money (damages). In this case, Leroy should take possession to the farm on May 1 after contracting with the seller Karla, but Karla did not vacate the farm until Sep. 15, and she breached the contract. So, Leroy should get recovery on consequential damages about the expense of buying hogs from Karla because Karla has known that Leroy bought the hogs. Based on sale of land on compensatory damages, a minority of states follow a different rule when the seller breaches the contract and the breach is not deliberate. In this situation, these states allow the prospective purchaser to recover any down payment plus any expenses incurred. In this case, Leroy should get recovery from Karla about the expense of hogs though Karla did not breach the contract on purpose....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 01/17/2011 for the course POLITICAL 210 taught by Professor Amitage during the Spring '08 term at San Mateo Colleges.
- Spring '08