Opinion ID: 810054
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Giving an Appropriate Remedy

Text: The second requirement — that the contract provide a basis for giving an appropriate remedy — presents a closer question. As noted, RJR exercised considerable discretion in deciding what rewards would be offered. We cannot know precisely what merchandise the plaintiffs might have received had RJR fully performed its obligations, an uncertainty that 5 That the alleged contract afforded RJR some discretion in performing does not compel the conclusion that the alleged contract is too indefinite to be enforced. See Restatement § 34 cmt. a (“If the agreement is otherwise sufficiently definite to be a contract, it is not made invalid by the fact that it leaves particulars of performance to be specified by one of the parties.”); Corbin § 4.4 (“[T]he fact that one of the parties reserves the power of fixing or varying the price or other performance is not fatal if the exercise of this power is subject to prescribed or implied limitations, as that the variation . . . must be reasonable or in good faith.” (footnote omitted)); Cal. Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co., 289 P.2d 785, 791 (Cal. 1955) (“[W]here a contract confers on one party a discretionary power affecting the rights of the other, a duty is imposed to exercise that discretion in good faith and in accordance with fair dealing.”). SATERIALE v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. 12303 could inhibit the process of determining a remedy. See Bustamante, 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 699 (“[T]he limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of damages.” (quoting Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 810, 814 (Ct. App. 1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is not clear, however, that damages could not be rationally assessed here. RJR’s internal documents assigned C- Notes values, such as 15 cents per $1 note, that might afford a basis for assessing damages. In the alternative, RJR’s final rewards catalog and pre-breach performance might provide a basis for giving an appropriate remedy.6 [10] We should not lightly conclude, especially at this early stage in the proceedings, that there is no basis for determining an appropriate remedy where, as here, the allegations suggest that the parties intended to contract. See Cal. Lettuce Growers, 289 P.2d at 790 (“The law does not favor, but leans against, the destruction of contracts because of uncertainty; and it will, if feasible, so construe agreements as to carry into effect the reasonable intentions of the parties if that can be ascertained.” (quoting McIllmoil v. Frawley Motor Co., 213 P. 971, 972 (Cal. 1923))); Corbin § 4.1 (“If the parties have concluded a transaction in which it appears that they intend to make a contract, the court should not frustrate their intention if it is possible to reach a fair and just result, even though this requires a choice among conflicting meanings and the filling of some gaps that the parties have left.”). Here, the allegations of the complaint support the inference that the parties intended to contract. The plaintiffs enrolled in the Camel Cash program, purchased Camel cigarettes and collected Camel Cash certificates. RJR accepted the plaintiffs’ registration forms, issued them enrollment numbers, performed under the program for 15 years and, according to internal RJR docu- 6 Neither side has suggested that the value printed on the face of the C- Notes — “1/1000 of 1¢” — reflects their actual value. 12304 SATERIALE v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. ments, treated outstanding C-Notes as a binding obligation and an outstanding financial liability. According to the documents, RJR closely monitored its exposure under the program, and even went so far as to create a financial reserve to cover that exposure — actions consistent with a legally binding commitment.7 [11] We also consider the plaintiffs’ substantial reliance on RJR’s promises, as well as the substantial benefits RJR accrued by virtue of consumers’ reliance on the Camel Cash program. Corbin explains that, “[i]f one party has greatly benefited by part performance or if one party has relied extensively on the agreement, the court should go to great lengths to find a construction of the agreement that will salvage it.” Corbin § 4.3 (footnotes omitted). For these reasons, dismissal for indefiniteness is unwarranted.