replied 3 years ago.
OK, then clearly given the written and verbal communications they were suppose to include networking as part of their services.
As a general rule, the objective of contract damages is to insure that the aggrieved or injured party should receive what he or she expected from the bargain. To the extent that an award of money can do so, the aggrieved party should be placed in the same position as though the contract had been fully performed. This is what is known as protecting the expectation interest of the parties. (Rest.2d §344(a))
A party cannot recover for loss which he could have avoided or mitigated through his reasonable efforts. (Rockingham Cty. v. Luten Bridge Co. 35 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1929); Rest.2d §350)
Damages are limited to those losses which were foreseeable, i.e., in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. (Hadley v. Baxendale. 9 Exch. 341(1854).) ; Rest.2d 351.) Special damages are recoverable when special circumstances exist which cause some unusual injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can only recover special damages if defendant knew or should have known of the special circumstances at the time the defendant entered into the contract.
In order to be recoverable, damages must be established with reasonable certainty. (Rest.2d §352; Cal.Civ.Code §3301.) In other words, damages which are speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot be recovered. (McDonald v. John P. Scripps Newspaper (1989) 210 CA3d 100, 104.)
No damages will be awarded for the mental distress or emotional trauma that may be caused by a breach of contract. (Rest.2d §353.)
Loss of profits, present or future, as an element of special or consequential damages, may be recovered for a breach of contract if; 1) The loss is the direct and natural consequence of the breach, 2) It is reasonably probable that the profits would have been earned except for the breach, and 3) The amount of loss can be shown with reasonable certainty.
One that has a predictable and finite number of customers and that has the capacity either to sell to all new buyers or to make the one additional sale represented by the resale after the breach is known as a "lost volume seller." If the seller would have made the sale represented by the resale whether or not the breach occurred, damages measured by the difference between the contract price and the market price cannot put the lost volume seller in as good a position as it would have been had the buyer performed. In these cases the seller is allowed to recover as damages the profit on the lost volume sale. (Neri v. Retail Marine Corp. 285 N.E.2d 311 (N.Y. 1972).) Restatement 2d § 350, Comment d (1979) notes that if a seller would have entered into both transactions but for the breach, then the seller has lost volume as a result of the breach. Thus, lost profits are awarded to a lost volume seller, notwithstanding that the seller resells the item that a buyer contracted to buy, based on the principle that the seller was deprived of an additional sale and the corresponding profit by the buyer's breach.
The general rule is that punitive damages (as opposed to compensatory damages) are not recoverable for breach of contract, even if the breach is willful. (See, UCC 1-305(1).) However, recent cases have tested the limits of this principle. In a cause involving tortious interference with an exisiting contract, the plaintiff may recover the full pecuniary loss of the benefits it would have been entitled to under the contract. The plaintiff is not limited to damages recoverable in a contract action, but instead is entitled to the damages allowable under the more liberal rules recognized in tort actions. (Rest.2d, Torts, § 774A.) In Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co. , 729 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.App.1987) the jury was held to have properly based its damage award on the replacement cost model. The jury was correctly instructed that the measure of damages was the amount necessary to put Pennzoil in as good a position as it would have been in if its agreement with Getty had been performed. The punitive damage award, which amounted to 40% of actual damages, was ruled not excessive.
So, given the facts you stated and the results you have stated and the law on the matter - it's very clear that you can not only recover your costs but lost profits.
I would be gathering all my information together and contacting an attorney immediately to file suit against the company.
My only concern is - that they don't have the money or resources to pay the judgment you get against them. Your option then is to try and go after the owners of the company for fraud and deceipt in the matter beyond just your contractual damages.
Can I sue them for breach of contract, negligence and/or anything else?
Answer: Absolutely. Not only breach of contract but your lost profits and potentially the torts of fraud and deception.
Thank you so much for allowing me to help you with your questions. I have done my best to provide information which will be helpful to you. If I have not fully addressed your questions or if you have any follow up questions, or if I have misinterpreted your questions in any way, please do not rate me yet, but simply ask a follow up question without rating so I can provide you with a fully satisfactory answer. If I have fully answered your question(s) to your satisfaction, I would appreciate you rating my service with 3, 4, or 5 faces so I can receive credit for helping you today. I thank you in advance for taking the time to provide me a positive rating!
If you have any questions, about this or anything else, please ask for me, Law Pro, directly in the question and I will try to assist you as best I can.
For example, you would state, "This question is for Law Pro . . . (then on with your question).
Law Pro and other Business Law Specialists are ready to help you