Opinion ID: 2717726
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Breaching Party Has the Duty to

Text: Mitigate Damages First year law students are generally taught that a plaintiff claiming breach of contract himself has a duty to mitigate. 11 Corbin on Contracts, § 57.11 (1993) (“It is not infrequently said that it is the ‘duty’ of the injured party to mitigate damages so far as can be done with reasonable effort.”). However, that maxim has a corollary: “[t]he burden of proving that losses could have been avoided by reasonable effort and expense must always be borne by the party who has broken the contract.” Id. Delaware law is consistent. Although there is no specific precedent from the Delaware Supreme Court or this Court applying Delaware law, lower Delaware courts and the District Court of Delaware consistently apply Delaware law to conclude mitigation is an affirmative defense. Moreover, we have been unable to find any cases to the contrary. See Stinson v. Edgemoor Iron Works, 53 F. Supp. 864, 868 (D. Del. 1944) (concluding, in the absence of clear Delaware Supreme Court authority, Delaware would follow the general weight of authority and hold that “the burden of pleading and proving mitigation of damages is upon the defendant”); 46 Steven W. Feldman, Autonomy and Accountability in the Law of Contracts: A Response to Professor Shiffrin, 58 Drake L. Rev. 177, 241 (2009) (“[T]he overwhelming weight of authority states that the breaching promisor must prove that the promisee inappropriately failed in avoiding or alleviating his injury.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Supreme Court of Delaware has held that a “party has a general duty to mitigate damages if it is feasible to do so.” Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1367 (Del. 1995) (remanding on whether mitigation was reasonable). “[B]ut whether mitigation is required depends upon the circumstances of the case and is subject to a rule of reasonableness.” Lynch v. Vickers Energy Corp., 429 A.2d 497, 504 (Del. 1981) (citations omitted) (reversing judgment for the defendants after a bench trial because the lower court incorrectly found failure to mitigate) overruled on other grounds by Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701 (Del. 1983). Mitigation is a limitation on the plaintiff’s ability to recover damages that could have been avoided. W. WillowBay Court, LLC, 2009 WL 458779, at  (observing that, as “a general rule, a party cannot recover damages for loss that he could have avoided by reasonable efforts,” and finding after a damages trial that the plaintiff made reasonable, although unsuccessful, effort to mitigate (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350 cmt. b)). But this mitigation is a burden of conduct, not a burden of proof at trial. Conway v. Hercules Inc., 831 F. Supp. 354, 359 (D. Del. 1993) (finding in a pre-trial order that “[d]efendant asserts plaintiff must show he mitigated his damages with ‘reasonable diligence,’ but in so asserting . . . defendant confuses the duty with the burden.” (citation omitted)). A plaintiff must prove damages, and a defendant may show those damages should be limited because the plaintiff failed to take reasonable mitigating measures. 47 Tanner v. Exxon Corp., Case No. 79C-JA-5, 1981 WL 191389, at  (Del. Super. Ct. July 23, 1981) (denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the defendant did not plead mitigation and produced no evidence its theory of mitigation was feasible). The party asserting the limitation bears the burden of proof. Id.