When a buyer covers (purchases substitute goods) after a seller's breach, the buyer's damages equal the difference between the cover price and the contract price, plus any incidental and consequential damages, minus any expenses saved. Here, cover price ($530,000) minus contract price ($500,000) = $30,000. Answer A ($500,000) would represent the full contract price, which ignores the obligation to mitigate and the cover rule. Answer B ($530,000) would give Acme a windfall by ignoring the contract price it would have paid anyway. Answer D ($0) is incorrect because mitigation reduces but does not eliminate damages; Acme is entitled to the $30,000 excess cost.

Liquidated damages clauses are enforceable when (1) actual damages were difficult to estimate at the time of contracting, and (2) the amount specified was a reasonable forecast of the harm likely to result from breach. If actual damages are zero and the clause appears to be a penalty rather than a reasonable estimate, courts may refuse to enforce it. Answer A overstates freedom of contract; courts police penalty clauses. Answer C is incorrect because the purpose of liquidated damages is to fix damages in advance, not to require proof of actual damages equal to the clause amount. Answer D is incorrect because written agreement alone does not make a liquidated damages clause enforceable if it is found to be a penalty.

Real property is legally considered unique - no two parcels are identical - so monetary damages are presumptively inadequate when a seller refuses to convey. Specific performance is the standard remedy in real estate breach cases, compelling the seller to complete the conveyance. Answer A is incorrect because land has ascertainable market value and real damages can be proven. Answer B is incorrect because breach of contract is not a tort and punitive damages are not available for ordinary contract breaches. Answer C is incorrect because liquidated damages require a contractual clause specifying them; no such clause is mentioned, and the buyer's preferred remedy here is performance, not money.

Anticipatory repudiation occurs when one party makes a clear and definitive statement before the performance is due that it will not perform its contractual obligations. Upon anticipatory repudiation, the non-breaching party may immediately treat the contract as breached, cease its own performance, and sue for damages without waiting for the performance date. Answer B describes an actual breach at the performance date, not anticipatory repudiation. Answer C is incorrect because a modification request is not a repudiation; it may even be a sign of good faith negotiation. Answer D is incorrect because insolvency alone, without a communication of intent not to perform, is not anticipatory repudiation (though it may give rise to a right to demand assurance of performance under the UCC).

Restitution is an equitable remedy that prevents unjust enrichment. It requires the breaching party to return the value of any benefit they received from the non-breaching party's performance, restoring the parties to their pre-contract positions. Restitution is often sought when a contract is unenforceable or rescinded. Answer A describes expectation (compensatory) damages, which provide the benefit of the bargain. Answer C describes punitive damages, which are generally unavailable for contract breach. Answer D describes lost profits, which are part of compensatory damages, not restitution.

Under the American Rule, each party to litigation bears its own attorney's fees unless a contract provision, statute, or court rule provides otherwise. If the parties expressly agreed in their contract that the prevailing party may recover attorney's fees, that provision is generally enforceable. Answer A is incorrect because the American Rule presumes each party pays its own fees; automatic recovery is the exception, not the rule. Answer B is incorrect because fraud is not a prerequisite; a contractual fee-shifting provision is the standard basis for recovery. Answer C is incorrect because contractual fee-shifting provisions are enforceable exceptions to the American Rule.

A wrongfully discharged employee must make reasonable efforts to mitigate by seeking comparable employment. The employer's damages obligation is reduced by any wages the employee earns or could reasonably have earned in a comparable position. However, the employee is not required to accept inferior employment or employment in a different field or location that is not comparable. Answer B is incorrect because the duty to mitigate requires seeking comparable work. Answer C overstates the duty; the employee need only seek comparable employment, not any employment. Answer D is incorrect because the employee is entitled to prospective wages through the contract term, not just past wages.

A material breach is one that defeats the purpose of the contract and goes to its essence. It excuses the non-breaching party from further performance and entitles them to sue for total breach damages. A minor (partial) breach does not go to the essence; the non-breaching party must continue to perform their own obligations but may sue for the damages caused by the partial breach. Answer A is incorrect because not every contract violation is material. Answer B is generally correct but incomplete; it omits the point that a non-material breach still allows suit for damages while requiring continued performance. Answer C is incorrect because materiality is not determined by dollar amount.

Limitation of remedy clauses are generally valid and enforceable under both common law and the UCC. Under UCC Section 2-719, parties may limit or alter the remedies available, but if the limited remedy fails of its essential purpose (i.e., it would leave the non-breaching party without any adequate remedy), the limitation may be disregarded. Courts may also refuse to enforce such clauses if they are unconscionable. Answer A is incorrect because parties have broad freedom to limit remedies contractually. Answer C is incorrect because limitation clauses are not exclusive to the UCC; common law contracts may also include enforceable remedy limitations. Answer D is incorrect because enforceability is not conditioned on the breaching party's good faith; the analysis focuses on whether the clause is unconscionable or fails of its essential purpose.

Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy that orders a party to act (mandatory injunction) or refrain from acting (prohibitory injunction). It is appropriate when monetary damages would be inadequate to compensate for the harm, the harm is irreparable, and the balance of equities favors the injunction. Common examples include enforcing non-compete clauses and preventing breach of confidentiality agreements. Answer A describes a claim for compensatory damages, not injunctive relief. Answer B describes rescission or termination, not an injunction. Answer D is incorrect because contractual provisions for injunctive relief are persuasive but not determinative; courts retain equitable discretion.