Contracts Question Forum

[BCLS]

Hi Guys,

Right now we are covering Construction K's and I just want to make sure I'm getting everything I need for the exam correct here. We have read the following cases:

Groves v. John Wunder
Peevy House

Essentially what I'm gathering regarding damages is this:

The general rule to use when calculating damages is the cost to remedy the defect. However, if this is grossly disproportionate to the end (such as in peevy spending $29,000 to raise the value of land to $300) the diminution in value is the correct rule to apply.

Exception: if the land is incapable of carrying a market price, such as the enjoyment of having a uniform surface or personal reasons, remedying the defect is proper bc/ diminution in value wouldnt take these interests into account.

[zeth006]

Hi Guys,

Right now we are covering Construction K's and I just want to make sure I'm getting everything I need for the exam correct here. We have read the following cases:

Groves v. John Wunder
Peevy House

Essentially what I'm gathering regarding damages is this:

The general rule to use when calculating damages is the cost to remedy the defect. However, if this is grossly disproportionate to the end (such as in peevy spending $29,000 to raise the value of land to $300) the diminution in value is the correct rule to apply.

Exception: if the land is incapable of carrying a market price, such as the enjoyment of having a uniform surface or personal reasons, remedying the defect is proper bc/ diminution in value wouldnt take these interests into account.

Haven't read the other case, but for Peevyhouse, you're on the right track in terms of the theory the judge adopted in awarding damages. Tack on the fact that plaintiffs in Peevy should have brought up the fact that the $300 doesn't measure the monetary gains that could have been made from using the farmland for livestock and agriculture after the restoration.

[BCLS]

Hi Guys,

Right now we are covering Construction K's and I just want to make sure I'm getting everything I need for the exam correct here. We have read the following cases:

Groves v. John Wunder
Peevy House

Essentially what I'm gathering regarding damages is this:

The general rule to use when calculating damages is the cost to remedy the defect. However, if this is grossly disproportionate to the end (such as in peevy spending $29,000 to raise the value of land to $300) the diminution in value is the correct rule to apply.

Exception: if the land is incapable of carrying a market price, such as the enjoyment of having a uniform surface or personal reasons, remedying the defect is proper bc/ diminution in value wouldnt take these interests into account.

Haven't read the other case, but for Peevyhouse, you're on the right track in terms of the theory the judge adopted in awarding damages. Tack on the fact that plaintiffs in Peevy should have brought up the fact that the $300 doesn't measure the monetary gains that could have been made from using the farmland for livestock and agriculture after the restoration.

Thanks for the response! This is the one subject (remedies for breach) that I'm having trouble with. Hopefully as we proceed it will only get more clear.