- Which of the following best describes the roaster's damages?
Answer: $1,500, because the roaster may recover the difference between the contract price and the resale price plus incidental damages.
Whenever you see a seller suing after a buyer's repudiation, your first instinct should be to look for whether the seller actually resold the goods. Under UCC Article 2, if the seller resells in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner, the primary remedy is the resale remedy under §2-706. Here, the roaster resold the beans at the prevailing market price of $3.00, which was $0.50 below the contract price (so the contract price was $3.50). The resale was proper, so the roaster can recover the difference between the contract price and the resale price: 2,000 pounds × $0.50 = $1,000. On top of that, the $500 in advertising costs to locate the buyer are classic incidental damages, bringing the total to $1,500.
The choice offering $1,000 (using the market price but excluding advertising) is wrong because once a resale is actually performed, the resale price—not the market price—is the benchmark, and incidental damages are recoverable. The choice that calculates $1,500 but incorrectly claims advertising costs are not recoverable is wrong; advertising to find a buyer is a textbook example of incidental damages. The choice offering $2,000 (using market price plus advertising) is doubly flawed: the math is off (market difference is $1,000, plus $500 equals $1,500, not $2,000), and the resale price is not irrelevant—it is the very foundation of the §2-706 remedy.
Strategy tip: On the bar, when a seller resells after a buyer's breach, automatically plug into the formula: (Contract price − Resale price) + Incidental damages. Don't default to market-price damages if a valid resale exists.
- In Dealer's action against Buyer for breach of contract, what is the maximum amount of damages Dealer may recover?
Answer: $5,000, because Dealer lost one additional sale that her inventory and capacity would otherwise have permitted her to make.
When you see a contract damages problem where the seller has ready inventory and an established customer base, immediately think about the lost volume seller doctrine. A resale that covers the exact contract price doesn't necessarily make the seller whole—the real loss is the extra sale that capacity would have generated but for the breach. Here, Dealer's ample inventory means she could sell 50 cars, but Buyer's breach dropped that to 49. The resale to the second customer simply filled the slot that would have existed anyway, so Dealer lost the profit on the 50th car. That profit is $5,000 ($30,000 contract price – $25,000 wholesale cost), making the correct answer the choice that says "$5,000, because Dealer lost one additional sale that her inventory and capacity would otherwise have permitted her to make."
The choice saying "$0, because Dealer resold the car for the same price" is the classic trap—it ignores the lost volume doctrine and mistakenly assumes a resale at the same price eliminates all loss. The choice offering "$5,000, because Dealer is entitled to the profit on the resale plus incidental damages" gets the profit number right but incorrectly adds incidental damages, which are not mentioned or proven in the facts. Finally, "$30,000, because Buyer breached before accepting the car" improperly invokes the action for the price—that remedy only applies when the seller cannot resell or the buyer has accepted the goods, neither of which is true here.
For your exam, remember: whenever a seller has unlimited supply or capacity, a resale does not cap damages—you must add the profit on the lost sale. Look for phrases like "ample inventory" or "can obtain as many" as your signal to apply this rule.
- Which of the following best states the company's right to recover?
Answer: It may recover nothing because the bank exercised a bargained-for right to cancel, and the company's loss was avoidable by completing the program and reselling it.
Whenever you see a contract with an express termination clause, your first move should be to ask: is exercising that clause a breach? Here, the bank had a bargained-for right to cancel at any time with no fee—exercising it is not a breach, but a valid exercise of contractually granted power. Since there is no breach, the company cannot recover reliance damages (the $60,000 spent) or expectation damages. The correct answer is the choice that says it recovers nothing because the bank exercised a bargained-for right to cancel, and the company's loss was avoidable. The loss was avoidable because the company could have completed the program for $90,000 and sold it for $170,000, yielding $80,000—enough to cover the $60,000 sunk cost. By stopping work, it failed to mitigate its damages. Now, the wrong answers: the choice saying it may recover $60,000 as reliance damages because the cancellation breached the contract is wrong—cancellation was expressly permitted, so no breach occurred. The choice saying it may recover $60,000 because it stopped after the other party's repudiation is also wrong—repudiation is an unequivocal refusal to perform, but the bank simply exercised a contractual right. The choice saying it recovers nothing because its only expectation was $200,000 is a trap; it incorrectly suggests the issue is the expectation measure, but the real reason is the valid cancellation clause and the avoidable loss. Strategy: always separate a valid termination right from a breach—if cancellation is expressly allowed, no damages follow. Then check whether the non-breaching party could have mitigated by completing the work and reselling it.
- Which of the following most accurately describes the farmer's damages?
Answer: $10,000, because the contract price minus the market price on the date set for delivery is the proper measure, and the farmer had no duty to resell.
When a buyer repudiates before delivery, think of UCC seller's damages: the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time and place for tender. Here that is 10,000×($5.00−$4.00)=$10,000. The farmer had no duty to resell the wheat after the repudiation. A resale could help establish market price, but the seller's recovery is not conditioned on reselling, and because the market fell, a resale would not have reduced the loss anyway.
The $0 choice treats mitigation as a total bar, but failure to resell does not eliminate the seller's expectation damages under the UCC. The $8,000 choice invents a "$2.00 per bushel avoidable decline" and treats mitigation as a setoff; actually the relevant decline was only $1.00 per bushel, and mitigation does not work as a dollar-for-dollar credit against the buyer's liability. The other $10,000 choice reaches the right number for the wrong reason: the farmer does not recover the full $50,000 contract price as lost profit "without accounting for market value." He recovers the contract-minus-market difference, which necessarily accounts for the wheat's market value.
On exam day, when you see an anticipatory repudiation in a sale-of-goods question, apply the formula and do not require the non-breaching seller to resell. Watch for equal-dollar distractors with bad rationales—the correct answer must have both the right amount and the right measure. - If the original promoter argues that the pianist failed to mitigate damages, which of the following best describes the pianist's right to recover damages for the remaining term of the contract?
Answer: Her recovery will be reduced by the amount she would have earned from the rival's tour because that tour was substantially similar and she had no reasonable ground to reject it.
Whenever you see a breach-of-contract damages question about "failure to mitigate," the core rule is that the injured party must take reasonable steps to limit losses. In employment contracts, that usually means accepting an offer of substantially similar employment; if she unreasonably rejects such an offer, her recovery is reduced by the amount she would have earned from it.
Here, the rival's tour was substantially similar in prestige, pay, and working conditions, and the promoter proved the pianist could have stayed in hotels near her mother during the tour. Her preference to stay near her ailing mother therefore did not make the rejection reasonable. Because she had no reasonable ground to reject a comparable offer, her damages must be offset by the salary she would have received from that tour. That makes the correct answer the choice stating her recovery will be reduced by the amount she would have earned from the rival's tour.
The choice saying she may recover in full because an injured party is never required to accept a third-party offer is wrong: the dutyto mitigate can require accepting a comparable substitute offer. The choice saying she may recover in full because the rival tour was not substantially similar and her refusal was reasonable is also wrong:the evidence established the opposite. And the choice saying her recovery will be reduced to $500 per month because she must accept any offer is wrong:she is not required to accept any employment, only substantially similar employment, and the offset is the earnings she would have received, not necessarily a flat $500 per month for the remaining term.
Strategy tip: On mitigation questions, ask two things: was the substitute substantially similar? Was therejection reasonable? If the answer to both is yes, offset the lost contract recovery by the would-be earningsci.
- In the contractor's action against the homeowner for breach, what is the contractor's approximate total recovery?
Answer: $38,000, representing $21,000 for costs incurred, $15,000 for lost profit,and $2,000 for reasonable mitigation expenses.
This is an expectation-damages question: the goal is to put the contractor in the same economic position as if the homeowner had not breached. When a construction owner repudiates before completion, the contractor may recover the net profit that would have been earned, the costs already incurred, and any reasonable post-breach expenses incurred to mitigate damages.
The contractor's damages here equal the $50,000 contract price, minus the $14,000 in costs saved by not finishing, plus the $2,000 reasonable storage expense. That gives $38,000. Check the components: total estimated cost was $35,000, and the remaining work would have cost $14,000, so the contractor had incurred $21,000 in costs before breach. The expected profit was $50,000 minus $35,000, or $15,000. So recovery is $21,000 incurred costs + $15,000 lost profit + $2,000 mitigation expenses = $38,000.
The $50,000 full contract price is wrong because it would overcompensate the contractor by ignoring the $14,000 of work never performed. The $36,000 figure correctly captures costs plus lost profit but omits the $2,000 in reasonable mitigation expenses. The $23,000 figure mistakenly limits the contractor to costs incurred plus mitigation, denying the lost profit he would have earned from the completed bargain.
On bar-exam damages questions, always separate amounts already incurred from costs saved by the breach, then add expected profit and reasonable post-breach costs.
- In a jurisdiction that follows the traditional common-law rule applicable to commercial landlords, what is the landlord's likely recovery?
Answer: The full unpaid rent for the remaining two years, because a commercial landlord has no duty to mitigate damages by seeking or accepting replacement tenants.
Whenever you see a landlord-tenant damages question that says "traditional common-law rule" and "commercial," stop and recall the old property rule: a commercial landlord has no duty to mitigate damages after a tenant abandons. The tenant's obligation to pay rent continues through the lease term, regardless of whether the landlord seeks or accepts replacement tenants.
Here, after the tenant broke the lease, the landlord remained entitled to the unpaid rent for the remaining two years. Advertising the space and receiving a lower $8,000 offer are irrelevant because accepting a replacement tenant was not required. The landlord may simply hold the tenant to the lease's rent obligation.
The choices reducing recovery by the $8,000 monthly offer, or by the fair rental value, both incorrectly assume a duty to mitigate and require a credit for market value. But under the traditional rule, no such offset exists. The choice saying recovery is "nothing" is even more flawed: even in mitigation jurisdictions, a breaching tenant is not automatically excused merely because the landlord rejected one offer—damages are reduced only to the extent actually avoidable.
Your takeaway: when the exam combines "commercial" with "traditional common-law," that signals no duty to mitigate. If the question instead says "modern trend" or involves a residential lease, expect mitigation and possible offsets for replacement rent.
