Did Jordan engage in
a substitute transaction? No.
Must he? No.
engaged Jordan for 3 Mill.
Would say you got more money, so there is not damages.
cheese for 1 million.
Jordan: I want the million difference.
Scotts of American, not charging anything.
Jordan: The difference is 2 million dollars.
You did not use good faith in finding an alternative.
How do go about
comparing the Nikie, Craft and MCI deal
the contract what requires.
Court is savvy.
happens when Michael when he offers his service? His publicity value as
an endorser will be diluted.
It is not only your
capacity to do it, but it is your intent to do it.
do not focus solely on capacity.
What is the
likelihood that Jordan was going to continue? He was scaling back.
What if he would
have continued then he would have gotten? The rest of the contract.
What if currently
did not have something but wanted to have something? He would get the
difference between the market value and contract value.
> Contract = entitled to something
<= Contract = entitled to nothing.
seller claiming lost volume status must also demonstrate that it would
have entered into subsequent transactions.
has not shown he could and would have entered into a subsequent
Rather, the evidence shows that Jordan did not have the "subjective
intent" to take on additional endorsements.
347 Measure of
Damages in General
Subject to the
limitations stated in
the injured party has a right to damages based on his expectation
interest as measured by
(a) the loss in the
value to him of the other party's performance caused by its failure or
(b) any other loss,
including incidental or consequential loss, caused by the breach, less
(c) any cost or
other loss that he has avoided by not having to perform.
11. A contracts to
send his daughter to B's school for $ 5,000 tuition. After the academic
year has begun, A withdraws her and refuses to pay anything. A's breach
does not reduce B's instructional or other costs and B is unable to find
another student to take the place of A's daughter. B has a right to
damages equal to the full $ 5,000.
(1) that the seller
of services had the capability to perform both contracts simultaneously;
(2) that the second contract would have been profitable; and (3) that
the seller of service would have entered into the second contract if the
first contract had not been terminated").