ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 18
BREACH OF CONTRACT AND REMEDIES
18-1A. Mitigation of damages
(Chapter 18—Pages 337–338)
The court awarded Vuylsteke $74,012 ($72,000 for the annual salary and $2,012 for shipping costs to
18-2A. Specific performance
(Chapter 18— Pages 340–341)
T.I.A.A. should not succeed in its request for specific performance. Specific performance is an
extraordinary remedy that a court will grant only when ordinary monetary damages are insufficient to
B-76 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 18
18-3A. Waiver of breach
(Chapter 18—Pages 344–345)
No. The court acknowledged that Dorn and Britt’s consistent acceptance of payments that were, on the
18-4A. Mitigation of damages
(Chapter 18—Pages 337–338)
The court awarded West damages that included $216,852.27 for his salary through October 1999 (two
years with SABCO), but determined that “West through reasonable efforts could have earned $165,000
18-5A. Liquidated damages v. penalties
(Chapter 18—Pages 338–339)
The court entered a judgment against Gaddis for the amount of the unpaid dues, plus $58 in late fees.
Gaddis appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
18-6A. Limitation of liability
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 18 B-77
(Chapter 18—Pages 345–346)
18-7A. Liquidated damages versus penalties
(Chapter 18—Pages 338–339)
18-8A. Mitigation of damages
(Chapter 18—Pages 337–338)
The trial court concluded that Red Lion was in breach of contract, and awarded Fair more than $180,000,
18-9A. Damages
(Chapter 18—Page 335)
The court awarded Hudson what it sought, and Beys appealed to a state intermediate appellate court.
B-78 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 18
18-10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The jury found that Garza had failed to mitigate his damages. The court disregarded this
finding and entered a judgment in Garza’s favor that included an amount for lost earnings. TAHC
appealed to a state intermediate appellate court. The state intermediate appellate court held that Garza
was not entitled to an award for lost earnings and reversed this portion of the lower court’s judgment.
2. Generally, it is fair to require employees to try to mitigate damages, even when the
employee has been wronged. This doctrine has sometimes been called the “rule of avoidable
consequences.” Phrased another way, a party is held not to be able to recover for damages that he or
3. The ethics underlying the mitigation doctrine include the work ethic and the concept of
good faith. A party should not, in good faith, be permitted to recover for damages that he or she could