The court tries to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed by the defendant . The plaintiff should end up with a sum equal to his costs already incurred, plus the profit he would have made had the contract been completed. P contracts with D, a surgeon, for a skin graft operation which D promises will make P's hand completely normal. In fact, the operation fails to correct the scar and also causes P's hand to become covered with hair. P may recover the difference between the value of a perfect hand and the value of his present scarred and hairy hand.
Contractor does half the work, and demands payment.
Owner wrongfully refuses. But if the cost of remedying defects is clearly disproportionate to the loss in market value from the defective performance, plaintiff will only recover the loss in market value. Mainly, this means that a plaintiff who claims that he would have made profits had the defendant not breached must show not only that there would have been profits, but also the likely amount of those profits. Courts are especially reluctant to award lost profits from a new business , that is, a business which at the time of breach was not yet in actual operation. After Contractor has done about half the work, Owner repudiates.