BUS607 Week 3 Discussion 1 Breach of Contract?

Breach of contract

A breach of contract was not established, so there was no legal cause of action. The court would hold that DeRosier did not expect Utility to remove the fill without cost, so Utility did not breach any duties it owed to DeRosier in that regard. It was undisputed that Utility dumped the extra fill with DeRosier’s consent. The question was whether that consent created a contract under which Utility had a duty to remove the fill at no charge. The court would rule in the negative because there was no evidence that DeRosier expected to get the fill for free or installed any equipment on his property with an expectation of free removal of excess material.

Damages

The damages would be equal to the cost of removing the excess fill (which could be as much as $46,629). Therefore, the damages would be greater than $9,500 because the payment made by DeRosier exceeds the contractually required amount. Whether or not Utility breached the contract, the damages were $46,629. The same post-offer reliance damages would be due in both cases.

Consequential damages

This case is the rare occasion where consequential damages can be justified. If a contractor committed a tort and you are on your property, he may have to make amends by fixing your property (Bauer,2022). The contract very well may or may not have been breached, but a fixed amount of money is not enough to justify consequential damages. The amount that was owed was $9,500, but it did not equal the number of cubic yards that were dumped on DeRosier’s property. The amount that DeRosier paid to remove the extra fill did not equal the number of cubic yards of fill that was dumped onto his property by Utility. Therefore, consequential damages are justified.

References

Bauer, R. S. (2022). Consequential Damages in Contract. University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, 80(5), 687-710.