Opinion ID: 1995867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether action is at law or in equity

Text: Anderson contends that the court wrongly determined that it had repudiated the contract and was not entitled to equitable relief. Anderson argues that this is an equity action because it seeks to recover damages for detrimental reliance. We disagree and determine that Anderson's claim is for breach of contract and is an action at law. A party's reliance interest is a measure of damages in a contract action. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 349 at 124 (1981). Reliance damages are defined as an alternative measure of damages under which the injured party has a right to damages based on his reliance interest, including expenditures made in preparation for performance or in performance, less any loss that the party in breach can prove with reasonable certainty the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed. Id. The Restatement does not treat detrimental reliance as a separate cause of action. Instead, it is a measure of damages for breach of contract. Here, Anderson sought expenses for preparation of work on the project under the contract and contends that the SID breached the contract by failing to issue a notice to proceed. Thus, Anderson was seeking reliance damages for breach of contract which is an action at law. We note that the court tried the case as if it were an action in equity. Because Anderson's action was actually an action at law, however, we will not reverse the court's factual findings unless they are clearly wrong.