Opinion ID: 1691397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What damages are each of the parties entitled to because of the breach of the contract?

Text: ¶ 22. The court's purpose in establishing a measure of damages for breach of contract is to put the injured party in the position where she would have been but for the breach. Leard v. Breland, 514 So.2d 778, 782 (Miss.1987). Contract damages are ordinarily based on the injured party's expectation interest and are intended to give him the benefit of the bargain by awarding him a sum of money that will, to the extent possible, put him in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed. J.O. Hooker & Sons, Inc. v. Roberts Cabinet Co., 683 So.2d 396, 405 (Miss.1996) (quoting 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 45). ¶ 23. In addressing damages, the chancery court held that both parties suffered damages, the damages of each party offset the others and each party was responsible for their attorney fees. ¶ 24. But for the Nossers' breach, the Theobalds would have received $175,000 for the sale of their Grocery. However, the Nossers did breach, and the Theobalds subsequently received only $160,000 for their Grocery. The Nossers have already paid $5,000 on the Note, and it will take another $10,000 to put the Theobalds in the same position in which they would have been absent a breach. Accordingly, the Theobalds are entitled to recover the $10,000 which they seek. ¶ 25. The Theobalds seek to recover their attorney fees of $3,966.50 from the Nossers under paragraph four (4) of the Note, which provides [i]f this Note is not paid promptly in accordance with its terms, the Undersigned agrees to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorney fees. Of course, parties may by contract provide that in event of dispute, the losing party must pay the winner attorney's fees. Grisham v. Hinton, 490 So.2d 1201, 1206 (Miss.1986). The Nossers failed to dispute the reasonableness of the aforementioned attorney fees either at trial or in their brief to this Court, and absent objection, it must be assumed that said fees are reasonable. The chancery court apparently held that, notwithstanding paragraph four (4) of the Note, the Theobalds should pay their own attorney fees because [t]his action was brought regarding the basic validity of the Note. This was a genuine factual issue which could not have been resolved without this Court's determination. No cases have been cited by either the Chancery court or the parties which support such a holding, and this Court has been unable to find any cases supporting such a position. As evidenced by Grisham, a clause in a contract such as the one in paragraph four (4) of our Note is certainly reasonable. However, enforcing this Note without enforcing the clause addressing attorney fees would be contrary to the law. Accordingly, the Theobalds are entitled to recover $3,966.50 in attorney fees. ¶ 26. The Theobalds claim that they incurred numerous costs once the Nossers vacated the Grocery totaling $6,503.10. The Theobalds assert that these expenditures were necessary in getting the Grocery ready for re-sale, and they included repairs, cleaning, restocking, payment of past due bills, and the notes on the store. The Chancellor awarded the Theobalds $2,358.60 worth of the afore-mentioned costs, declining to award the three (3) months worth of notes on the Grocery as well as the cost of replacing a circuit in the Grocery. Allowing the Theobalds to recover the three (3) months worth of notes as well as the sales proceeds from which those notes would have been paid would amount to double recovery; and therefore, the Chancellor was correct in not allowing said damages. Although it in not clear from the record why the Chancellor declined to award the cost of replacing the circuit in the Grocery, there is no substantial evidence pointing to the conclusion that such a ruling was manifest error. The Chancellor did, however, make a mathematical mistake in her computation of these damages. The Court allowed $100 in damages for yard maintenance outside of the store, when in fact, Mr. Theobald testified that he spent $100 on two (2) different occasions for said maintenance. Therefore, the Chancellor's award of $2,358.60 to the Theobalds for incidental damages shall be increased to $2,458.60. ¶ 27. Finally, the Theobalds are seeking to recover $1,783.65, this sum representing three (3) months worth of mortgage notes on their home. They paid off their home mortgage with the sale proceeds, and they claim that they were forced to make three (3) extra mortgage payments on their home because the Nossers did not pay the Grocery Store Promissory Note on time. However, they can not recover the three (3) months worth of home mortgage notes for the same reason that they can not recover the three (3) extra store notes. ¶ 28. Although there is credible evidence in the record that the Nossers added $9,440.58 worth of additional inventory and $1,851.86 worth of improvements to the Grocery, they are not entitled to recover these amounts as damages for unjust enrichment. Had the Nossers not increased the value of the Grocery by the aforementioned $11,292.44, it is reasonable to assume that Ms. Jacks would have paid approximately $11,292.44 less than what she actually paid when she bought the Grocery. In other words, the extra inventory and improvements were sold for part of the $160,000 paid by Ms. Jacks; therefore, the Nossers have already been compensated for the improvements they made to the Grocery, as this $160,000 has already been credited to them. ¶ 29. Additionally, the Nossers seek to recover $2,460, the difference in the $5,000 they paid the Theobalds in early April and $2,540, the total of the Grocery's mortgage notes which were paid by the Theobalds while the Nossers occupied the store. The Nossers claim that this $2,460 represents unused rent to which they are entitled to recover. However, the initial award of $10,000 to the Theobalds gives the Nossers full credit for the $5,000 that they paid the Theobalds in early April, 1997. Awarding the Nossers the $2,460 they now seek would amount to a double recovery, therefore, they are not entitled to said recovery.