Essay B Reliance damages represent the monetary value of the expenses and opportunities the plaintiff wasted under a contract. Reliance damages look backwards in an attempt to undo the effects of a contract. Additionally, there are numerous other types of damages such as expectation, account of profits, nominal, liquidated, and punitive damages. In contrast with reliance damages, expectation damages look forward in an attempt to fulfill a contract; “give me what I expected to receive. Put me in the position I would have enjoyed had the contract been properly performed”. Account of profits places the defendant in the position they would have enjoyed if the breech of the contract never occurred; “give me what you never should have received”.
…show more content…
Put me in the position I would have enjoyed if I had not wasted resources under this contract”; place the victim back to the position they would have been in had they not wasted resources under a contract. When it comes to these situations, the plaintiff can claim either reliance or expectation damages but not both. Reliance damages exist to prevent people from agreeing to deals where say money is paid upfront to provide merchandise or a service and the party that was paid upfront chooses not to provide what they agreed to. Basically, without reliance damages, people could accept money upfront for something, never accomplish what they were supposed to, and face no real consequences for their actions. Thus, reliance damages are needed to punish defendants who attempt to accept money with no plans of fulfilling their side of the bargain, and to deter people from doing so in the first …show more content…
This is due to the fact that it is unfair to punish the defendant for the plaintiffs' agreement to a contract where a loss would occur to the plaintiff even if the deal had gone through without a hitch. Therefore, reliance damages cannot be used to escape the consequences of a bad bargain because, as in the example above, if you sign a contract agreeing to pay to $5000 upfront for merchandise that ends up only being worth $3000; even if the defendant had gone through with the deal, the plaintiff still would have suffered a loss of $2000. When the defendant refused to provide the supplies, the plaintiff could only sue them for $3000 in reliance damages by virtue of the fact they had accepted a bad bargain; the plaintiff already agreed to suffer a $2000 loss in the contract. Hence, the $3000 in reliance damages would be fair in this situation as the defendant is only responsible for failing to provide the merchandise, worth $3000, and not for the plaintiff's mistake in overpaying for the merchandise. Thus, it would be grossly unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the plaintiff's bad
Put me in the position I would have enjoyed if I had not wasted resources under this contract”; place the victim back to the position they would have been in had they not wasted resources under a contract. When it comes to these situations, the plaintiff can claim either reliance or expectation damages but not both. Reliance damages exist to prevent people from agreeing to deals where say money is paid upfront to provide merchandise or a service and the party that was paid upfront chooses not to provide what they agreed to. Basically, without reliance damages, people could accept money upfront for something, never accomplish what they were supposed to, and face no real consequences for their actions. Thus, reliance damages are needed to punish defendants who attempt to accept money with no plans of fulfilling their side of the bargain, and to deter people from doing so in the first …show more content…
This is due to the fact that it is unfair to punish the defendant for the plaintiffs' agreement to a contract where a loss would occur to the plaintiff even if the deal had gone through without a hitch. Therefore, reliance damages cannot be used to escape the consequences of a bad bargain because, as in the example above, if you sign a contract agreeing to pay to $5000 upfront for merchandise that ends up only being worth $3000; even if the defendant had gone through with the deal, the plaintiff still would have suffered a loss of $2000. When the defendant refused to provide the supplies, the plaintiff could only sue them for $3000 in reliance damages by virtue of the fact they had accepted a bad bargain; the plaintiff already agreed to suffer a $2000 loss in the contract. Hence, the $3000 in reliance damages would be fair in this situation as the defendant is only responsible for failing to provide the merchandise, worth $3000, and not for the plaintiff's mistake in overpaying for the merchandise. Thus, it would be grossly unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the plaintiff's bad