Renzo if you aren't going to contribute anything nobody is forcing you to post here, all you've done is post 3-4 sentences with incredibly useful statements like:
"You really think all the lawyers and scholars in the world got this wrong?" and "You don't understand econ, I do, I don't even have to explain my points, you are wrong".
Seriously, I threw out a few heavyweight legal scholars who have all challenged the notions of expectation damages as our default rule for damages. One of the most groundbreaking contracts papers of all time asked the same question that I wanted to know in my OP (why do we give positive value to one's expectations?) and it took over 40 years of academic debate and emerging theories to even give a solid rebuttal to the claim by Fuller that expectation interest is basically distributive justice that hands out "windfalls" in return for nothing.
I could go on but I think you'll just offer another post about how stupid and naive I am without even attempting to address substance.
You haven't even attempted to make a contribution, let alone explain the flaws in my reasoning. I know it's not perfect but at least the JazzOne is including useful comments with his condescending statements.
JazzOne wrote:I think your conception of contracts law is flawed in several respects. For one, sellers don't need "unlimited" supply for the lost volume doctrine to make sense. They just need a supply that exceeds their volume.
Really, I just wanted to tag this thread because it's about to get fun.
Also, you keep using the term profit in a slightly incorrect way. All aggrieved sellers are entitled to sue for lost profit. The profit is the benefit of the bargain. The difference is that some sellers have the capacity to profit from multiple sales of a fungible product whereas others do not.
I'm not using precise language here given the quality of replies so far. I used "lost profit" as a statement of their nearly absolute right to lost profits under the rule. Even if someone steps into the store and buys your boat half a second later, you still owe them profit where a small shop that builds 1 boat a year would have no recourse against you.
I would disagree that supply > volume is enough. You could extend the doctrine to a lot of unqualified parties using this definition, I'm pretty sure cases have made it clear that rule only applies to merchants who have a "nearly inexhaustible". Sure smaller businesses can collect lost profits when supply > volume but that might be because they just aren't able to "cover" with another sale. Then again I feel like you are using a vague definition of supply and volume here so I'm not exactly sure how to respond. Either way it's just clarification, at least you acknowledge the rule exists.
@Betasteve and others,
I don't care if the mod is the demi-god of contracts, I gave my Neri example and he said it would never happen in the real world. Where's all this "ooooooh he challenged betasteve!!!! zomg /popcorn" coming from?
I even pointed out a few posts ago that it isn't common in real transactions because no business wants the trouble or the reputation for suing people on canceled orders, but the fact that it's legal and has been done before was my part of my argument where expectation gets absurd results.