Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Minnesota Supreme Court - 286 N.W. 235, 205 Minn. 163
Tags: Contracts, Damages, Breach, Expectation damages, Remedies
tl;dr:
Plaintiff owned a plant for sorting gravel, and contracted Defendant the rights to their plant with a renewal option. Defendant agreed that after removing the gravel from Plaintiff’s land, they would grade the land. They did not grade the land.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1939 case Groves v. John Wunder Co., the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a contract dispute involving damaged land between a landowner (Groves) and a gravel supplier (Wunder). In the agreement, Wunder promised to remove all gravel from Groves' land and leave it level, paying Groves $105,000 for the lease. However, Wunder only removed the highest quality gravel, leaving the property damaged and uneven.
Groves sued Wunder for breach of contract and sought damages due to the defective performance. The lower court awarded Groves damages based on the difference between the land's value as left by Wunder and the value it would've had if the contract terms were met, totaling $12,160. Groves appealed.
The higher court reversed the ruling, stating that the proper measure of damages should be the reasonable cost to repair the incomplete part of the contract. The court found that Wunder acted in bad faith, knowingly violating their obligation to leave the land level. It rejected the previous rule that damages should be based on the difference in value and instead estimated that the reasonable cost of repairing the land would be $60,000.
This case is significant because it demonstrates the concept and application of damages in breach of contract cases involving defective performance. Such damages depend on whether the breach occurred in good faith or bad faith, and the cost to remedy the situation.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The case involves a breach of contract for the removal of sand and gravel, with the plaintiff seeking damages for the defendant's failure to fulfill their obligations. The dispute is over the measure of damages, with the plaintiff arguing for the cost of completing the contract, while the lower court awarded damages based on the difference in the land's value. The appropriate measure of damages for a willful breach of a building contract is the hypothetical peak of accomplishment that would have been reached if the work had been done as demanded by the contract. The value of the land is not relevant in calculating damages for a breach of a grading contract. The measure of damages for tort cases cannot be used in breach of contract cases. The case establishes that a building contractor cannot substitute the agreed material without the owner's consent, and the owner is entitled to the cost of laying the material as agreed upon in case of a breach of contract. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ordered a new trial to determine the proper interpretation of the contract between the parties. The measure of damages in a breach of contract case where the cost of performance exceeds the market value of the property is the difference between the market value of the property in its present condition and what its market value would have been if the contract had been fully performed. In construction contract cases where the defect cannot be repaired without excessive expense or risking damage to other parts of the building, damages are calculated based on the difference between the value of the building in its current state and its value if it had been built according to the contract.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.