Opinion ID: 2498554
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clearwire May Still Charge Customers the ETF even if It Is More Expensive than the Remaining Monthly Payments

Text: ¶ 31 Finally, Appellants argue that even if the ETF is a form of alternative performance, Clearwire is unable to enforce it. The crux of their argument is that the promisee of an alternative performance contract may recover only damages flowing from the alternative `resulting in the smallest recovery.' Restatement (First) of Contracts § 344. Opening Br. of Appellant at 34. This is incorrect. ¶ 32 As the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated, Even if this is currently the rule and its absence from the Second Restatement of Contracts suggests that it is not it does not appear to apply in a case such as this one. Schwan-Stabilo Cosmetics GmbH & Co. v. Pacificlink Int'l Corp., 401 F.3d 28, 34 (2d Cir.2005). In an alternative contract where one of the alternatives is a sum of money, the promisee is entitled to the sum of money even though the other alternative may be less onerous to the promisor. Id. (quoting 25 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 66:106, at 120-21 (4th ed. 2002)). Therefore, Clearwire can charge the ETF even though it might be more expensive than the amount remaining under the contract. [2]