Opinion ID: 604801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Beach Paper Products.

Text: 84 Our conclusion that Rey reasonably rejected the Sears project disposes of LHP's claim for damages relating to the Beach paper products as well. Rey never saw, much less disapproved, the Beach paper products: as the undisputed evidence shows, Beach withdrew its proposal when the Sears project fell through; it never reached agreement with LHP or presented any product to Rey for approval. Therefore, LHP's claimed right to recover potential profits from the Beach project could be justified, if at all, only as consequential damages resulting from a wrongful rejection of the Sears project. As the Sears project was not wrongfully rejected under the terms of the APA, LHP is not entitled to consequential damages related to Beach's anticipated profits. See, e.g., Ryan v. Royal Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 731, 744 (1st Cir.1990) (unless appellants can demonstrate that [appellee] breached a duty owed to them.... consequential damages will not lie). 85