Source: https://contractslawinaction.law.miami.edu/?page_id=118
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:34:39+00:00

Document:
Expectation damages compensate the injured party for the benefit he would have received had the K not been breached, minus any amount he would have spent in performance of the K.
Such damages must be proven with reasonable certainty, and may be measured by the K price, loss in value, or lost profits.
The goal, again, is to place the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in had the K been fully performed, but what happens if the non-breaching party would have lost money under the K?
As the non-breaching party comes in with "clean hands," or at least "cleaner hands" they may strategically seek Restitution Damages [the fair value of what was conferred by the non-breacher on the breacher], which may turn a bad deal into at least a break-even deal.
RST §371 Restitution : Value conferred on the other party [e.g. Quantum Meruit , i.e. "reasonable value for services rendered."].
(b) the extent to which the other party’s property has been increased in value or his interests advanced.
Oliver v. Campbell , 43 Cal. 2d 298 (1954) : No quantum meruit where K fully performed & all that remains to perform is money payment.
Consequential damages – which may be general or special – must be foreseeable at the time the K was formed.
Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1845). General consequential damages are the natural and probable consequence of a breach and are therefore assumed to have been within the contemplation of the breaching party.
A party seeking general damages need not offer further proof that the damages were foreseeable.
Special consequential damages arise from the special facts and circumstances of the non-breaching party and are not deemed to be within the contemplation of the breaching party unless he was made aware of such specific facts and circumstances.
Shirley Macla ine Parker v. 20th Century Fox , 474 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1970) p. 40: The measure of recovery by a wrongfully discharged employee is the amount of salary agreed upon for the period of service, less the amount which the employer affirmatively proves the employee has earned or with reasonable effort might have earned from other employment, not of an inferior or different kind .
If there is a valid K à damages are likely expectational, restitutional (if the innocent party would have lost money under expectational damages they may strategically seek restitution instead), or equitable (if the remedy at law is inadequate, e.g. the subject of the K is unique).
If there is not a valid K à Ct. may write a K (K-at-law, sometimes called a "quasi-K.") If there is no K, the party cannot be put in the position they would have been had the K been performed (i.e. no expectation damages).
Unjust enrichment must be avoided, so a party that has materially relied on the agreement may recover their reliance costs, & even a party who is in breach may sue to recover restitution, subject to an offset for any damages they have caused to the innocent party.
(2) were contemplated by both parties at the time of K’ing, or were specified at the time of K’ing.
Sec. Stove & Mfg. Co. v. Am. Rys . Express Co. , 51 S.W. 2d 572 (1932) : Hadley still applies, however, where the carrier has notice of peculiar circumstances under which the shipment is made, which will result in an unusual loss by the shipper in case of delay in delivery, the carrier is responsible for the real damage sustained from such delay if the notice given is of such character , & goes to such extent, in informing the carrier of the shipper’s situation, that the carrier will be presumed to have Ked with reference thereto.
Sec. Stove & Mfg. Co. v. Am. Rys. Express Co. , 51 S.W. 2d 572 (1932) : Where there is a breach of K, the party suffering the loss can recover only that which he would have had, had the K not been broken, however, in some instances, the injured party may recover expenses incurred in relying upon the K, although such expenses would have been incurred had the K not been breached.
RST §371 Restitution : Value conferred on the other party [e.g. Quantum Meruit ].
Oliver v. Campbell , 43 Cal. 2d 298 (1954) : No quantum meruit where K fully performed.
Goods have been destroyed either by the buyer, or were destroyed after the risk of loss had passed to the buyer.
The seller has made a reasonable effort to resell under 2-706, but has been unable to do so or reselling would be futile.
Where the goods are unique, where cover is unlikely/impossible, or where goods have been id’ed to the K and buyer has a security interest via partial payment.
If buyer does not cover where it is reasonably possible they may not recover consequential damages.
Copylease Corp. v. Memorex Corp. , 408 F. Supp. 758 (D. Cal. 1976) p. 61:. The test of uniqueness under [2-716] must be made in terms of the total situation which characterizes the K. Output & requirements Ks involving a particular or peculiarly available source or market present today the typical commercial specific performance situation. However, uniqueness[of the goods] is not the sole basis for specific performance, & the relief may also be granted in other proper circumstances [based on the relationship] & inability to cover is strong evidence of other proper circumstances .
Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co. , 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985) : To be valid a liquidation of damages clause, the clause must be a reasonable estimate at the time of K’ing or reasonable in light of actual damages. If damages would be easy to determine or if the estimate greatly exceeds a reasonable upper estimate of what the damages are likely to be, it is a penalty clause (i.e., not enforceable).
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. , 382 P.2d 109 (OK 1962) p. 151: The cost of performance is the proper measure of damages if this is possible & does not involve unreasonable economic waste ; & that the diminution in value caused by the breach is the proper measure if construction & completion in accordance with the K would involve unreasonable economic waste.

References: §371
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §371
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.