Remedies for Breach of Contract
TQ 4.1
The breach of contract between two parties is a serious crime, and it assumes legal charges that may force the defendant to pay damages awarded by the court to the plaintiff. If the buyer violates the contract of sale, the seller has options he can employ as damages for any inconveniences. One of the remedies that the seller can seek is suing the other party intending to retrieve the price payable for the commodity. The seller also has the option of walking away and cancels the contract with the buyer to focus on getting other business dealings with other clients.
Furthermore, the plaintiff can opt to lease the payment due as an attempt to gain more benefits of the bargain during negotiations. If the contract stated that the seller had to deliver the goods to the best action is to stop making deliveries to claim liquidated damages. These liquidated damages will account for troubles the seller shouldered as a result of the breach of the sale contract. Finally, there is also the option of asking for compensatory damages. The buyer, on the other hand, has the right to sue the seller for loss linked to breaching the sale contract. Moreover, the buyer can cancel the entire agreement to obtain a cover for the damages incurred.
TQ 4.2
In the case, State v. Ernst & Young, the caught found the state guilty of neglecting its duties as a public institution when it discovered that there were mitigation plans put in place. This was because during the court preceding the State of New Jersey was unable to demonstrate and provide evidence that they had mitigated the damages. According to the court, the states were obliged to address the costs and, as such, had to take reasonable actions to that effect. Furthermore, the judge discovered that the bid made by Covansys was more intelligent than that of the proposal made by BearingPoint. Following this, the states should have chosen the Covansys agreement and let go of the contractor to minimize damages.
TQ 4.4
If I agree to sell my car to my neighbor at $2000 and later change my mind, the most probable outcome is that the court will force me to go through with the transaction. The judge would be against breaching the contract because the difference in prices between the deal and the amount payable for a comparable car is unreasonable. If it were a vintage vehicle worth $50000, the decision would have been different because it would have been difficult to find an equivalent car. Furthermore, there is no reasonable relationship between my used car worth $2000 and a vintage one.
DQ 4.1
The breach of any contract is regarded by the law as unlawful and, thus, the implementation of the law of the remedies. The perceived shortcomings of the plaintiff are liable for compensatory damages that the defendant has to be the aggrieved party. Article 39 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution is revolutionary because it acts as a moral compass and allows the defendant to atone for breaching the contract by paying back profit earned after the damage was done.
DQ 4.2
In my opinion, the Appellate Court’s judgment was unfair. This is because the court ruled out that the plaintiff was only liable for damages incurred through the lost profit of 1984 alone. It was, therefore, necessary that a new hearing was filed to allow the party to be entitled to the damages under the lost volume theory. This would require factual findings to be collected presented to the court for a just and fair decision to be given to the aggrieved party.