Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1931752
 
 

Footnotes (161)



 


 



The Missing Elements of Contract Damages


Mitchell L. Engler


Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Susan Schwab Heyman


Roger Williams University School of Law

September 21, 2011

Temple Law Review, Forthcoming
Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 113
Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 349

Abstract:     
In this article, we juxtapose two classic contract doctrines to expose a subtle, but dramatic, anomaly of damage law. The Jack Dempsey case heads one leading line of contract law. After Dempsey breached a contract to pursue another championship boxing match, the spurned promoter sued for his costs. The court limited the promoter’s recovery to costs incurred after the contract signing, thereby wiping out his pre-contract expenses. Separately, a promissory estoppel line of cases, headed by Red Owl, would allow promoters who never finalize a contract to recover their costs if reasonably incurred in reliance on a pre-contractual promise. While Dempsey and Red Owl have been independently analyzed at length, our linkage of them uncovers the striking possibility that an aggrieved party on a finalized contract might receive less than if he had failed to successfully negotiate the deal!

Beyond this first anomaly, our critical analysis of a Judge Posner opinion reveals a second unrecognized inconsistency. We show how an aggrieved party recovers pre-contract and fixed overhead costs on final contracts that provide in advance a fixed return, but not on those with variable or less certain returns. In other words, the aggrieved party of a contract without a fixed return, like the spurned Dempsey promoter, is treated worse than an aggrieved party of a set-return contract. Yet Judge Posner curiously defends the current law as providing - symmetrical results.

In response to the undercompensation problem, some scholars have proposed that the breaching party should be required to give all his gains from the breach to the aggrieved party. We utilize the movie Rocky to demonstrate why this disgorgement remedy goes too far. Suppose Dempsey had to breach a small fight contract to accept Gene Tunney’s unique offer to fight for the heavyweight championship. Why deprive Dempsey of all his hard-fought revenue regardless of the promoter’s harm?

Finally, we propose an innovative solution in lieu of disgorgement for contracts without a set return: a presumptive recovery of all costs plus a reasonable risky rate of return for the investment period. Our proposal essentially extends the well-established presumption that the aggrieved party can recover his post-contract costs when he does not seek recovery of his lost revenue. Our default presumption could be rebutted in litigation upon a proper showing of additional (or lesser) value by the aggrieved party (or the breaching party).

Number of Pages in PDF File: 46

working papers series





Download This Paper

Date posted: September 22, 2011 ; Last revised: October 25, 2011

Suggested Citation

Engler, Mitchell L. and Heyman, Susan Schwab, The Missing Elements of Contract Damages (September 21, 2011). Temple Law Review, Forthcoming; Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 113; Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 349. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1931752 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1931752

Contact Information

Mitchell L. Engler (Contact Author)
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law ( email )
55 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10003
United States
(212) 790-0217 (Phone)
(212) 790-0205 (Fax)

Susan Schwab Heyman
Roger Williams University School of Law ( email )
10 Metacom Avenue
Bristol, RI 02809
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 921
Downloads: 115
Download Rank: 146,161
Footnotes:  161

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.813 seconds