Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamages
contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamages

Related Cases

Roudis v. Hubbard, 176 A.D.2d 388, 574 N.Y.S.2d 95
View Case »
Crum v. McCollum, 211 Iowa 319, 233 N.W. 678
View Case »
Lonergan v. Scolnick, 129 Cal.App.2d 179, 276 P.2d 8
View Case »
Olson v. Etheridge, 177 Ill.2d 396, 686 N.E.2d 563, 226 Ill.Dec. 780
View Case »
Nilsson v. Cherokee Candy and Tobacco Co., 639 S.W.2d 226
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wired Music, Inc. v. Clark, 26 Ill.App.2d 413, 168 N.E.2d 736

Facts

The plaintiff, a music distributor, provided services to the defendant under a three-year contract. The defendant paid for 17 months before moving and discontinuing service, leaving 19 months remaining on the contract. The new tenant at the location was denied the right to take over the contract and instead entered into a new one for a shorter term at a higher rate. The plaintiff sought damages for the breach of contract, claiming lost profits for the remaining months.

The plaintiff, a music distributor, provided services to the defendant under a three-year contract. The defendant paid for 17 months before moving and discontinuing service, leaving 19 months remaining on the contract.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the plaintiff could recover damages for the breach of contract despite the new tenant entering into a different contract for service at the same location.

The main legal issue was whether the plaintiff could recover damages for the breach of contract despite the new tenant entering into a different contract for service at the same location.

Rule

The measure of damages for breach of contract is the difference between the contract price and what it would have cost the plaintiff to complete the contract, along with any profits lost due to the breach.

The measure of damages for breach of contract is the difference between the contract price and what it would have cost the plaintiff to complete the contract, along with any profits lost due to the breach.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the plaintiff's profit of $15.55 per month was undisputed. The court determined that the damages awarded were appropriate, as they reflected the profit the plaintiff would have earned had the contract been fulfilled. The court also rejected the defendant's argument regarding the duty to mitigate damages, stating that the plaintiff's ability to supply music to other customers did not negate the damages owed for the breach.

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the plaintiff's profit of $15.55 per month was undisputed.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant was liable for the remaining profits and connection charges due to the breach of contract.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant was liable for the remaining profits and connection charges due to the breach of contract.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the plaintiff, the music distributor, because the court found that the defendant breached the contract and was liable for the damages incurred.

The prevailing party was the plaintiff, the music distributor, because the court found that the defendant breached the contract and was liable for the damages incurred.

You must be