holding that a plaintiff “is entitled to recover the amount proved to have been spent as expenses incurred in a reasonable effort to avoid the harm which both parties had reason to foresee would be the probable result of defendant’s breach of the contract”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a plaintiff “is entitled to recover the amount proved to have been spent as expenses incurred in a reasonable effort to avoid the harm which both parties had reason to foresee would be the probable result of defendant’s breach of the contract”
- holding that the Tucker Act has consistently been interpreted to allow jurisdiction over claims which, although perhaps somewhat tortious in nature, are essentially based upon the breach of a contractual obligation
- holding that increased scale and size or location of business did not necessarily render a business venture new
- holding that government could not act negligently when performing its obligations under a contract
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JONES, Chief Judge
(dissenting in part).
I agree with the opinion and conclusions of the majority, except for the item of lost profits.
In all the circumstances of this case I do not believe that lost profits during a post-war period for a building originally constructed for war purposes are sufficiently established by a showing of profits which plaintiff made during the same post-war period in buildings which it had constructed for and which for a long time it had operated in its regular business.
Instead of lost profits, which are to some degree necessarily speculative, I would allow plaintiff the reasonable rental value of the average space occupied by the defendant, as found by the trial commissioner, for the 67-day period of excess occupancy, to wit, $11,610.
I agree to the other items as set out in the opinion of the court.
WHITAKER, Judge, joins in this dissent.