stating that damages should be reduced by “the extent that the breach itself made [the plaintiffs property] more valuable to the plaintiff,” but that damages should not be reduced by “increases in the value of [the plaintiffs property] that either resulted from the performance of the contract or occurred after the breach but not because of it”
How later courts described this case
- stating that damages should be reduced by “the extent that the breach itself made [the plaintiffs property] more valuable to the plaintiff,” but that damages should not be reduced by “increases in the value of [the plaintiffs property] that either resulted from the performance of the contract or occurred after the breach but not because of it”
- discounting the portion of anticipated profits that would have arisen after the date of judgment
- awarding damages for breach of contract discounted to the date of judgment
- discounting anticipated profits to the date of judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KUNZIG, Judge,
concurring:
*209 I concur in the Chief Judge’s opinion, including the portion which makes clear that, in ruling the "excess” value of the plant should be subtracted from total anticipated revenue, we merely intended to require the subtraction of any excess value that resulted from the breach, as distinguished from excess plant value resulting from the contract itself.
CONCLUSION OP LAW
Plaintiff is entitled to recover, and judgment is entered for the plaintiff for $33,457,400.