This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
For a parallel case, see Guilbert v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 503 F.2d 587 (6th Cir. 1974). See also Restatement Second §90, illus. 8 & 9. According to the Restatement, the recovery of expectation damages in Chrysler was justified since the defendant had acted willfully, whereas in Goodman the defendant had acted inadvertently. For another explanation see Wheeler v. White, infra p. 225.3
Is not the true reason for denying expectation damages in Goodman that such damages would amount to a double recovery? Remember that plaintiffs did not ask for net but for gross profits (out of which their expenses should have been paid). Suppose plaintiffs could have sold three hundred radios at a profit of $10 each. Could they recover $3,000 and ignore their expenses?
June 02, 2014
22.214.171.124 Notes - Chrysler Corp. v. Quimby
Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.