Louise Caroline Nursing
Home, Inc. v. Dix Constr. Corp.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
1972.
362
Facts: Louise made a contract with Dix to build a nursing
home. Though Louise fulfilled its contractual
obligations, Dix didn’t complete construction in time. An auditor ruled that Louise suffered “no
compensable damages”. Louise objected to
the trial court’s application of the auditor’s rulings and said it was entitled
to the difference in the value of the building as it was left uncompleted and
the value the building would have had if it had been completed.
Issue: Is the plaintiff entitled to damages based on the defendant’s
abandonment of performance?
Rule: Damages shall be awarded such that the plaintiff will
be put in the same position as if the contract had been performed.
Analysis: If the nursing home can turn to another contractor to
complete the construction within the original contract price agreed upon with the
breaching contractor, then they were not harmed by the breach.
Conclusion: The trial court’s ruling was upheld and the nursing
home was awarded no damages.
Note
What is the general principle
at work in this case? What could be its
broader applications? If you can make up
a breach by buying what you need from another vendor at the same price, then no
harm was done to you and you ought not collect damages. I think Crail is consistent with Louise
because both apply the general principle that damages need only be awarded that
are sufficient to make the plaintiff as well off as if the contract had been performed.