Contract Law - Part 2: Remedies

BUL 2241Activity 9·8 min read

Why it Matters

When a contract falls apart, the first question a client asks is what it will cost or what they can recover. Contract remedies exist to make the injured party whole rather than to punish the breaching one, and the difference between those two ideas decides most damages fights. Knowing how a court measures a broken promise lets you value a dispute before you spend money on it. This activity has you put a number on four breaches drawn from real Florida cases.

Current Context

On July 8, 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal decided Merco Group at Akoya, Inc. v. General Computer Services, Inc., reversing the denial of a remittitur after a jury awarded a computer services company damages on a breach of contract claim for a Miami condominium project. The company’s owner testified that it had never paid one subcontractor and had paid another about $200, so there was, in the court’s words, “a total failure of proof” of any loss on those contracts, and the developer conceded that the invoices in evidence supported at most $108,898.98. The court applied Florida’s remittitur statute, section 768.74, which asks whether an award bears a reasonable relation to the damages actually proved, and it sent the case back to be reduced to the highest amount the evidence could support. Every fact pattern below asks you to put a number on a broken promise, and this decision shows what happens to a number the evidence cannot carry.

Key Concepts

Material versus Minor Breach

A material breach defeats the purpose of the contract, excuses the other party from performing, and supports a suit for full damages. A minor breach means the breaching party substantially performed but fell short in some small way, so the other party must still perform, usually by paying, and can deduct damages for the shortfall. Classifying the breach comes before any calculation.

Expectation Damages

The standard remedy for breach: the amount that puts the injured party in the financial position they would have occupied had the contract been performed. If you agreed to buy supplies for $10,000 and had to pay a replacement vendor $12,000 for the same goods, your expectation damages are $2,000. Courts require the amount to be proven with reasonable certainty.

Restitution

A remedy that looks backward instead of forward, requiring the breaching party to return the value it received so it is not unjustly enriched. It is used when expectation damages are too speculative to calculate or would produce a windfall. Deposits and partial payments are the typical subject of a restitution claim.

Specific Performance

A court order requiring the breaching party to perform the contract as promised rather than pay damages. It is granted only when money cannot substitute for the thing promised, such as a particular parcel of land or a unique work of art. Courts refuse it for ordinary goods and services.

Mitigation of Damages

The injured party’s duty to take reasonable steps to limit its losses after a breach. A landlord whose tenant leaves early must try to re-let the space rather than sue for every month of rent left on the lease. Damages the plaintiff could reasonably have avoided are not recoverable.

Consequential Damages

Losses that flow from the breach indirectly, such as lost profits on other deals, recoverable only if they were foreseeable when the contract was made. The rule dates to Hadley v. Baxendale and still controls whether a plaintiff can recover more than the value of the bargain itself. Two of the fact patterns below turn on it.

Resources

Very Brief Introduction: Remedies (Professor Nate’s short overview of contract remedies; watch it first.)
Textbook: Chapter 16 Remedies (The assigned reading on damages, restitution, and specific performance.)
Basics of Contract Law, LawShelf (A free video course whose later modules cover breach and remedies.)
Expectation damages, Cornell Wex (The measure of damages that most of the fact patterns turn on.)
Restitution, Cornell Wex (When a plaintiff recovers what the defendant received rather than what the plaintiff expected; the choice in Fact Pattern 3.)
Specific performance, Cornell Wex (The equitable remedy and the narrow situations in which courts grant it.)
Consequential damages, Cornell Wex (Foreseeability and the Hadley v. Baxendale rule that limits lost-profit claims like the one in Fact Pattern 4.)
Duty to mitigate, Cornell Wex (The rule that cuts off damages a plaintiff could reasonably have avoided; check it before you finalize any number.)
UCC § 2-712, Cover, Cornell LII (The buyer’s right to buy substitute goods and recover the difference, which is expectation damages for a sale of goods.)

What to Do

In this activity you analyze four fact patterns focused on the financial aftermath of a breached contract. The goal is not only to decide who wins but to say exactly what remedy the court should award and how it is measured. The four prompts move you from classifying the breach to defending a number, and your written explanations are what you post.

Part 1: Analyze the Fact Patterns

Read the four fact patterns below. For each one, run the four-prompt sequence in order. Start with the Breach Classifier to decide whether the breach is material or minor. Use the Remedy Selector to identify the correct remedy framework. Use the Case Analyst to learn how the court in the cited opinion measured damages, pasting the opinion text from the Google Scholar link so the AI works from the real case. Finish with the Damages Challenger to test your calculation before you write it up.

Fact Pattern 1: John contracted with CoolWaters Inc. to install a plunge pool that cooled to 55 degrees for $50,000. The installed pool only cooled to 65 degrees. CoolWaters could not fix it. John hired IceBath Builders for $10,000 to replace the chilling unit to meet the original specs. John is suing CoolWaters for $60,000 (the original $50,000 plus the $10,000 replacement cost). Koplowitz v. Girard, 658 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Fact Pattern 2: BrightStar entered a five-year service agreement with MegaCorp for $5 million annually. BrightStar’s operational costs to service the contract were $3 million annually. After Year 3, MegaCorp wrongfully terminated the agreement. BrightStar had received $15 million in fees. BrightStar is suing for $10 million in lost revenue for the final two years. Marbella Park Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. My Lawn Serv., Inc., 12 So. 3d 807, (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Fact Pattern 3: Grace paid Cal $40,000 upfront for a $60,000 kitchen remodel. Cal abandoned the project halfway through. An expert valued Cal’s completed work at $25,000. Grace hired Ben, who finished the remodel for $5,000. Grace is preparing a lawsuit against Cal. Explain what remedy Grace should elect: expectation damages or restitution? Cano, Inc. v Judet, 331 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fact Pattern 4: Sam paid $20,000 upfront for a two-year Elite Welding Academy program, which promised graduates would possess skills for a career in welding. Eighteen months in, Sam was wrongfully dismissed without cause. Sam sued for breach of contract, seeking future lost profits he would have earned as a welder. Elite argued it only owes a $20,000 tuition refund. Sharick v. Southeastern University of Health Sciences, Inc., 780 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Part 2: Draft Your Responses

After completing your analysis, write a clear, step-by-step explanation of at least 100 words for each fact pattern, stating how the dispute should be resolved and specifically what remedy should be awarded and in what amount. Show the calculation. Post all four responses together as a single discussion post.

Include one AI chat link with a 1–2 sentence explanation of what the conversation shows and why you chose to share it.

Suggested AI Prompts

Use these prompts as a starting point, then adjust them to fit your goal. Strong prompting develops through trial, revision, and testing. It’s a foundational skill that grows into more advanced AI work such as context engineering and agent-based workflows.

Breach Classifier

Act as a law professor. I am going to give you a short fact pattern about a breached contract. Identify whether the breach is material or minor and explain your reasoning in plain English using general contract principles. State which facts drove your classification and what would have to change for you to classify it the other way. Confirm that you understand and ask me for the first fact pattern.

Classification with a counterfactual. Asking what would flip the answer makes the model expose the facts its conclusion depends on, which is the part you need to understand for your own write-up.

Remedy Selector

Act as a legal remedies tutor. Now that we understand the nature of the breach, help me identify the appropriate category of remedy. Should the plaintiff seek expectation damages, restitution, or specific performance? Explain why that framework is the correct way to make the injured party whole in this scenario, and name the elements the plaintiff must prove to get it.

Decomposition into a decision. Choosing the framework before calculating anything keeps the numbers tied to a legal theory, and asking for the elements gives you the checklist you will apply in Part 2.

Case Analyst

Act as a legal researcher. I am going to paste the text of the actual court opinion that matches this fact pattern, taken from the Google Scholar link in the activity. Working only from that text, summarize how the court ruled on the calculation of damages. Did it limit recovery for failure to mitigate, lack of certainty, or lack of foreseeability? Quote the sentence or two where the court states its measure of damages. If the opinion does not address something I ask about, say so rather than guessing. Tell me when you are ready for the text.

Source grounding with a quotation requirement. Asking the model to quote the court’s own measure of damages makes its summary checkable against the opinion, which is the responsible-use habit this whole sequence is built to teach.

Damages Challenger

Act as a strict grading assistant. I am going to paste my 100-word explanation of the specific financial remedy the court should award, based on our earlier discussion. Read it and challenge my calculation. Point out whether I am accidentally giving the plaintiff a windfall, failing to put them in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, or ignoring mitigation. Do not rewrite it; give me pointed feedback so my final post is stronger.

Red-teaming a number. A damages figure is easy to get wrong by double counting, and an adversarial reviewer told exactly which errors to hunt for will find them faster than a neutral one.