NOTE

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.

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?