v2915-125

3

amounts. The damages sought by appellee below were

the differences between the prices offered by appellant

and those received on subsequent sale, together with

the expenses of sale.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is the normal measure of damages for breach of

contract so limited by the instant contractual provi-

sions that appellee is restricted to a forfeiture of the

deposit and reimbursement of actual "out-of-pocket"

expenses?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

There is no dispute as to the entrance into the

contractual relationship here in question. Further it

is admitted that appellant breached the contract by

failing to pay the purchase price or performing any of

the subsequent conditions.

Therefore, assuming the absence of specific lan-

guage to the contrary in the contract, the normal rule

of damages for breach of contract would apply and

appellee would be entitled to recover the difference

between the price offered by appellant and that re-

ceived on subsequent sale after breach, together with

additional expenses. This theory was used by the

court below in awarding judgment for $2,723.70 plus

interest and costs.

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2915

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2915

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2915#page/n124/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

expenses, paragraph, damages, contract, conditions, breach, subsequent, officer, limited, specific, profit, price, pocket, normal, loss

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

pocket expenses, contracting officer, wholly governs, thereafter advised, term expenses, subsequent conditions., specific lan, specific determina, settled proposition, reme dies, purchase price, provi sions, plus interest, perform , pellant contends.

Document Status: UGLY