Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Cal. 392

Baldwin v. Bennett

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1854

California Supreme Court · decided 1854-10-15

Services were rendered by the plaintiff under the contract, and pending the litigation, the defendant settled the claim, and conveyed by deed his interest in the property, without the advice or knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the sum agreed upon by the parties, and brought suit for it. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover what his services were worth, without regard to the contract.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The general rule as to measure of damages in an action for breach of contract, is correctly given by appellant’s counsel. It ‘is not the whole price agreed to be paid, but the actual loss sustained, which will consist of the value of the services rendered and the damage sustained by the refusal to allow performance of the rest of the contract.’ “To this rule there are, however, some exceptions. Where, from the nature of the contract, (as in this case,) no possible mode is left of ascertaining the damage, we will have presented the anomalous case of a wrong without a remedy, unless we adopt the only measure of damages which remains, and that is, the price agreed to be paid.” 4 Cal. at 393 .”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Anderson v. Gailey, 6 Cal. 3d 784 - Fracasse v. Brent

Relies on Hunt v. Test

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently February 1989

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

4018541860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

¶2The general rule as to measure of damages in an action for breach of contract, is correctly given by appellant’s counsel. It “is not the whole price agreed to be paid, but the actual loss sustained, which will consist of the value of the services rendered and the damage sustained by the refusal to allow performance of the rest of the contract.”

¶3To this rule there are, however, some exceptions. Where, from the nature of the contract, as in this case, no possible mode is left of ascertaining the damage, we will have presented the anomalous case of a wrong without a remedy, *394unless we adopt the only measure of damages which remains, and that is, the price agreed to be paid. Without [394] ' this, justice would be * defeated, and parties encouraged to violate their contracts of similar character. The defendant not only breaks his contract, but also deprives the party of showing the amount of injury under the general rule. He cannot complain that a different rule is invoked, when it is the only one left to make him responsible for his want of good faith. This reasoning was adopted in a case precisely similar, by the Supreme Court of Alabama. ( See Hunt v. Test, 8 Ala. 713.)

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/4/cal/392 · .json · Public domain