Opinion ID: 2671613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rent Credit

Text: Fishman contends that, because of Frick’s breach of contract, it is entitled to a credit for the rent it paid from June 2007 through September 2009. Frick counters that Fishman should not receive any rent credit because Fishman used the warehouse space during that time to store substantially more inventory than the stolen Product. The District Court correctly declined to award Fishman credit for the rent it paid Frick from June 2007 to September 2009, explaining that to give Fishman damages for the cost of the Product as well as a reimbursement for rent would put it in a better position than had the contract been fully performed. See Empire Props., Inc. v. Equireal, Inc., 674 A.2d 297, 304 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (“In a breach of contract action, damages are awarded to compensate the injured party for loss suffered due to the breach [, and t]he purpose of 4 damages is to put the plaintiff in the position he or she would have been in but for the breach.”).