Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, 1932.
265 Ill.App. 542.
Facts: The plaintiff and defendant
made a contract to put on a boxing match.
The defendant repudiated, having made a contract to fight someone else
at the same time. The plaintiff sued for
an injunction in
Issue: To which damages is the plaintiff entitled?
Rule: When expectation damages are improper or insufficient, reliance and restitution damages may be substituted in certain cases.
Analysis: The court advocates a reliance measure of damages for the plaintiff, arguing that lost profits are too uncertain, expenses incurred before the signing of the contract were speculative, and the costs of the attempted injunction against Dempsey were incurred at the plaintiff’s own risk.
Conclusion: The court reversed and remanded the ruling of the trial court and ordered a new trial.