Court Opinion

ID: 9698285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:46:38.985818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.869064
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
dissenting:
The lower court asked, “[WJhat better and more equitable way of imposing damages than to prorate [the] consideration [paid] . . . . ?” The answer to this question is that the amount of consideration paid has nothing to do with the determination of what damages should be imposed. A promisor may receive a very large consideration, but his breach of promise do very little damage; or he may receive a very small consideration, but his breach of promise do a great deal of damage. Thus, the fact that here the sellers received $28,000 in consideration for their promise not to compete has nothing to do with the case. I therefore cannot agree with the majority, that “[pjroof that the parties attached a particular value to the covenant not to compete *516. was competent evidence of the contractual loss . .” Majority Opinion at 515. To the contrary, it was no evidence at all.
Nor do I see any basis for the majority’s conclusion that there was no “alternative evidence of actual loss.” Majority Opinion at 515. The alternative — and only competent — evidence was evidence of lost profits. As the majority observes, these need be shown only with reasonable certainty. If not even that can be done, the conclusion should be, not that damages should be measured by the amount of consideration paid, but that no damage was done.
The case should be remanded for hearing on damages only.
PRICE, J., joins in this opinion.