Opinion ID: 1621464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the damages awarded for breach of contract are grossly inadequate.

Text: ¶ 15. Sweatt sought to recover against the Murphys for a breach of the lease contract, based on the Murphys' alleged failure to repair various items on the property. The jury, however, only returned a verdict of $700, which constitutes the amount of the security deposit tendered by Sweatt. Sweatt argues that these contractual damages are grossly inadequate. ¶ 16. The Murphys, however, disputed much of Sweatt's testimony regarding the defects which existed in the house, and it was for the jury to reach a determination on these issues. Moreover, the Sweatts only paid rent on the property for four months, and it was for the jury to determine the extent of damages, if any, which Sweatt incurred during this rather short lease period. Although a jury could conceivably have awarded some damages in addition to the return of the deposit, we conclude that there is insufficient basis for determining that the jury erred in assessing damages in the present case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ¶ 17. JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., SMITH, MILLS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.