35 F.2d 301.
Facts: The county contracted with Luten to build a
bridge. In essence, the county changed
their mind about the bridge, but Luten built it anyway.
Issue: What damages is a plaintiff entitled to if it
completed a contracted project even after they were informed it was no longer
needed?
Rule: Once a contract is repudiated, the plaintiff should
stop working on the project. They can’t “pile
up damages” for useless work. They
should only be compensated for the labor and materials they had already used at
the time of the breach.
Analysis: The court argues that once a party to a contract
receives word that the other party is repudiating the contract, they should
consider it a breach and stop performing their end of the deal.
Conclusion: The court reversed the trial court’s ruling and
ordered a new trial.