Opinion ID: 1691397
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Damages sought by the Parties

Text: ¶ 8. The Theobalds are seeking to recover $10,000, this being the difference between the $175,000 amount in the Note, minus the $160,000 sale of the Grocery to Ms. Jacks and the $5,000 already paid by the Nossers to the Theobalds. They are also seeking to recover attorney fees in the amount of $3,966.50. Additionally, Mr. Theobald testified that he incurred the following incidental damages, totaling $6,503.10, because of the Nossers alleged breach: $200.00cleaning the store after the Nossers' departure $3,810.00the mortgage note on the store from March to May, 1997 $335.52pro-rated insurance on the store $90.90alarm service for April $234.50repair of a blown circuit in the store $200.00yard maintenance outside of the store $35.00service truck for gas and supplies $60.00contract labor for restocking $1,280.00replacement of spoiled products $66.29past due phone bill incurred but not paid for by the Nossers $190.89the cost of keeping the Grocery's electricity on from the time the Nossers vacated until the time the Theobalds sold the store to Ms. Jacks ¶ 9. Finally, the Theobalds are seeking to recover $1,783.65, representing three (3) months mortgage payments on their home. The Theobalds paid off their home mortgage with the proceeds from the May, 1997, sale of the Grocery to Ms. Jacks, and they argue that had the Nossers paid the amount due on the Note in a timely manner, the Theobalds would have paid their home mortgage off in March, not May. Therefore, the Theobalds argue that they incurred three (3) extra notes on their home, and they seek to recover the sum of those notes. ¶ 10. The Nossers seek damages under the theory that the Theobalds were unjustly enriched with the $9,440.58 worth of additional inventory as well as the $1,851.86 worth of improvements they made to and left in the Grocery. ¶ 11. As previously stated, Mr. Nosser paid Mr. Theobald $5,000 in early April, 1997, for what Mr. Nosser described as the use of the store. Mr. Theobald paid the $1,270 monthly note on the Grocery in March and April 1997, said payments totaling $2,540. The Nossers are also seeking $2,460 damages, constituting the difference between $5,000 and $2,540, or, as they put it, unused rent. ¶ 12. The chancery court held that there was a valid contract between the parties; the Nossers breached the contract; both parties sustained damages; the damages of each party offset the others; and each party was responsible for their own attorneys fees. Aggrieved by this judgment, both parties have appealed to this Court seeking relief. Judgment was entered accordingly. Although the parties have collectively raised eight (8) separate assignments of error, the issues before this Court can be summarized into two (2) categories: (1) was there a contract and breach thereof; (2) if so, what damages resulted from said breach?