Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): supply coverage were not existed. Mgmt. Specialists, Inc. v. Northfield Ins. Co., 117 P.3d 32, 37 (Colo.App.2004). 3. Common Law Duty to Mitigate In addition to the contractual language, RK argues that it had a common law duty to mitigate because “[i]t is well-settled law in Colorado that an injured party may not recover damages for injuries which could reasonably have been avoided.” (RK Mot. at 10 (citing Fair v. Red Lion Inn, 943 P.2d 431, 437 (Colo.1997)).) RK asserts that the corollary to this rule is that a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for expenditures made in attempting to mitigate damages. (Id. (citing Tull v. Gundersons, Inc., 709 P.2d 940, 946 (Colo.1985)).) In Colorado, the common law duty to mitigate damages arises from a breach. See Fair, 943 P.2d at 437 (<HOLDING>); Tull, 709 P.2d at 946 (holding that plaintiff 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action (B) holding that employee had duty to mitigate damages following breach of employment contract by accepting offer of reinstatement (C) recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract (D) holding that where there was a breach of contract accompanied by aggravating factors that it was proper to treble the breach of contract damages (E) holding that no reporters record was required in suit to recover damages for breach of employment contract because the claim for damages was liquidated and proved by the employment contract attached to the petition
Output (English): holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action