Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Causation Certainty And Foreseeability
13 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Causation Certainty And ForeseeabilityQuestion 1 of 13

A manufacturer of industrial dies agreed to build a replacement die for a metal-stamping company. At the time of the agreement, the die maker knew that the company's sole die had broken, that the company had accepted a large order from a retail chain, and that the die had to be delivered by a specified date to fill that order. The die maker did not know the company's profit margin on the order. The die was delivered two weeks late, and the company lost the retail order. The company sues for the profit it would have made on that order.

Which statement is most accurate?

The company may not recover because lost profits are available only when the breaching party knew the specific amount of the lost profit.
The company may recover because the lost profit was a foreseeable consequence of the delay given the circumstances known to the die maker.
The company may not recover because the die maker did not know the company's profit margin, so the loss was not within the parties' contemplation.
The company may recover because the lost profit was a direct, rather than consequential, damage caused by the delay.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Causation Certainty And Foreseeability

Practice Causation Certainty And Foreseeability in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Causation Certainty And Foreseeability, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A manufacturer of industrial dies agreed to build a replacement die for a metal-stamping company. At the time of the agreement, the die maker knew that the company's sole die had broken, that the company had accepted a large order from a retail chain, and that the die had to be delivered by a specified date to fill that order. The die maker did not know the company's profit margin on the order. The die was delivered two weeks late, and the company lost the retail order. The company sues for the profit it would have made on that order.

Which statement is most accurate?

  1. The company may not recover because lost profits are available only when the breaching party knew the specific amount of the lost profit.
  2. The company may recover because the lost profit was a foreseeable consequence of the delay given the circumstances known to the die maker. (correct answer)
  3. The company may not recover because the die maker did not know the company's profit margin, so the loss was not within the parties' contemplation.
  4. The company may recover because the lost profit was a direct, rather than consequential, damage caused by the delay.
Explanation: Under the rule of Hadley, consequential damages are recoverable only if the loss was reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting, including losses arising from special circumstances made known to the breaching party. The die maker knew the die was needed to fill a specific order by a fixed date; that was enough to make the lost profit foreseeable. The exact profit margin need not have been disclosed. A and C incorrectly require knowledge of the profit amount; D mislabels consequential lost profits as direct damages.

Question 2

Choi, a first-time restaurateur, planned to open a ramen shop. He entered into a contract with a commercial kitchen installer to supply and install all cooking equipment by June 1. The installer breached, completing the work on August 1. Choi had no prior restaurant operating history, but he had signed a five-year lease, obtained a liquor license, hired a chef, and had already sold $20,000 of prepaid meal vouchers for June and July. He sues the installer for lost profits from June and July based on his pre-sold vouchers, industry data for comparable ramen shops, and expert testimony projecting his net profit margin.

May Choi recover lost profits from the installer's delay?

  1. No, because a new business with no operating history cannot prove lost profits with reasonable certainty.
  2. Yes, but only to the extent of the $20,000 in prepaid meal vouchers, which represent revenue lost.
  3. No, because lost profits from a new business are always speculative and recoverable only as reliance damages.
  4. Yes, if the pre-sold vouchers, lease, and industry evidence permit net lost profits to be estimated with reasonable certainty. (correct answer)
Explanation: A new business is not barred per se from recovering lost profits. The test is whether lost profits can be proven with reasonable certainty. Pre-sold meal vouchers, a fixed lease, industry data, and expert testimony can supply a sufficient basis to estimate net lost profits for June and July, provided the estimate is not speculative. Distractor A states the outdated categorical bar; B is wrong because the vouchers are evidence of revenue, not net profit, and damages are not limited to the vouchers; C similarly overstates a blanket rule and ignores modern law allowing reasonable estimates, though reliance damages are not the ceiling when lost profits can be proven.

Question 3

Rivera signed a fifteen-year lease with Foothill Properties to open a specialty spice shop, her first retail venture. Six months before the shop was to open, Foothill breached the lease by failing to complete the build-out, and Rivera abandoned the project. Rivera's expert prepared a lost-profits estimate for the first three years using a consumer survey of mall shoppers, sales data from similarly themed spice shops in other cities, and Rivera's business plan. Rivera had no prior spice-shop sales history and no binding purchase commitments from wholesalers or other buyers. Foothill moved to limit damages.

In denying Foothill's motion, the trial court applied the following rule:

"Lost profits may be recovered when the evidence provides a reasonable basis for estimating the loss. Mathematical certainty is not required. For a business with no established earnings record, however, lost profits must be established by evidence of pre-existing contracts or other firm commitments; estimates resting solely on hoped-for sales, consumer inclination, or general market acceptance are insufficient."

Should the trial court's denial of Foothill's motion be sustained?

  1. Yes, because Rivera's expert used market surveys and comparable-shop data to provide a reasonable basis for estimating lost profits.
  2. Yes, because Rivera's lack of prior earnings is irrelevant once she proves Foothill breached the lease.
  3. No, because a new business can never establish lost profits with reasonable certainty.
  4. No, because Rivera's projections are not based on pre-existing contracts or firm commitments and therefore are too speculative. (correct answer)
Explanation: Whenever a plaintiff with no earnings history seeks lost profits, the key is not just whether the estimate is reasonable—it is whether the evidence meets the heightened requirement for a new business. A track record lets statistical estimates suffice; without one, the rule demands pre-existing contracts or other firm commitments. Here, Rivera had no prior spice-shop sales and no binding purchase commitments. Her expert relied on a consumer survey, sales from similar shops in other cities, and her own business plan. Those sources describe hoped-for demand, consumer inclination, and general market acceptance—exactly what the rule says is insufficient for a business with no established earnings record. Mathematical certainty is not required, but something firmer than projected interest is. Because her estimate rests solely on speculative market evidence, the trial court should have granted Foothill's motion to limit damages, so its denial should not be sustained. The expert-evidence choice is wrong because a "reasonable basis" from surveys and comparables is enough only when a business has an earnings history; it does not satisfy the firm-commitments requirement for a new business. The breach-irrelevance choice is wrong because proving breach only establishes liability, not the quantum of damages; Rivera's lack of prior earnings is highly relevant to choosing the applicable damages rule. The "new business can never" choice is wrong because it is too absolute—a new business can recover lost profits if it proves pre-existing contracts or other firm commitments; lack of history is not an automatic ban. Study tip: when you see lost profits for a new business, scan for contracts, purchase orders, or firm commitments. If the evidence is only surveys, plans, comparables, or optimism, the answer is almost certainly "too speculative."

Question 4

Benson Tool contracted with Precision Parts for delivery of 500 custom fasteners by June 1. Benson planned to use the fasteners in a production run scheduled for June 1 through June 30. Precision Parts delivered the fasteners on June 15 rather than June 1. On June 15, before those fasteners arrived, a lightning strike destroyed Benson's factory, halting all production for the rest of June. Benson claims lost profits for the entire month of June. The parties agree that, had the fasteners arrived on June 1, Benson would have operated profitably from June 1 through June 15, and that the lightning strike would have shut down the factory from June 15 through June 30 even if timely delivery had occurred.

The governing rule is:

"A breach is a cause of loss only if the loss would not have occurred had the contract been performed. When a later independent event would have caused part of the loss even absent the breach, the breaching party is liable only for the loss attributable to the period before that independent event would have intervened."

What is the maximum lost profits Benson may recover from Precision Parts?

  1. Lost profits from June 1 through June 30, because Precision Parts' breach delayed delivery and the lightning strike does not absolve it of liability.
  2. Lost profits from June 1 through June 15 only, because the lightning strike would have prevented production after that date even if the fasteners had arrived on time. (correct answer)
  3. No lost profits, because the lightning strike was an independent intervening cause that superseded Precision Parts' breach.
  4. No lost profits, because Precision Parts' delivery on June 15 still allowed Benson to begin production once the factory was repaired.
Explanation: Whenever you see a later independent event following a breach, the key is not to ask whether the event was foreseeable but to compare the plaintiff's actual position with the position it would have been in if the contract had been performed. Here, if Precision Parts had performed timely, Benson would have earned profits only from June through June 15 because the lightning strike would have halted production from June 15 through June 30 regardless. That agreed hypothetical fact isolates the breach-caused loss: the delay cost Benson exactly the profit from June 1 through June 15. Therefore Benson may recover only lost profits from June through June 15. The full-month choice overlooks the limiting principle in the rule: a breaching party is not liable for loss that would have occurred even without breach. The "lightning was an independent intervening cause that superseded" choice confuses superseding causation with damage apportionment: independent events do not erase liability for losses already caused by the breach; they cut off losses only from the time they would have intervened. And the "delivery on June 15 still allowed begin once repaired" choice ignores that Benson lost the profitable window before the lightning; ability to use fasteners later does not remedy the lost profits from June 1 through June 15. Also factory destruction prevented use after June 15, so that option is doubly flawed. Study tip: On damages questions, first establish the "but-for" loss — what profits did the breach actually destroy? Then ask whether any independent event would have caused the same loss anyway; if so, subtract that portion from damages.

Question 5

GrowRight Nursery contracted with Bloom Farms to buy 5,000 rose bushes, with delivery due by April 15. Bloom knew that GrowRight was a retail nursery and that the bushes were for its spring selling season. During negotiations, GrowRight told Bloom only that the bushes were needed for "a large spring project" and did not mention that it had a contract to supply 2,000 of the bushes to a landscaping company for a municipal project at an unusually high price. Bloom delivered on April 22. The landscaping company refused to accept late delivery. GrowRight sued Bloom for the profit it expected from the landscaping contract. Bloom learned the details of that contract only after the contract was signed.

Which issue is most likely to determine whether GrowRight may recover the landscaping-contract profit, rather than only its ordinary spring-sale profits?

  1. Whether Bloom knew, when the contract was made, that GrowRight's "large spring project" included the unusually profitable landscaping contract. (correct answer)
  2. Whether Bloom knew that GrowRight was a retail nursery that intended to resell the rose bushes in its ordinary spring sales.
  3. Whether GrowRight can prove the landscaping-contract profit using the contract price and GrowRight's actual costs.
  4. Whether GrowRight acted reasonably to obtain replacement rose bushes after Bloom's late delivery.
Explanation: Whenever a breaching seller's liability for lost profits is at issue, you're in consequential-damages territory under Hadley v. Baxendale and UCC §2-715(2)(a). A buyer can recover profits from a specific resale contract only if the seller, at contract formation, had reason to know of that specific contract or special circumstances. Here Bloom knew GrowRight was a retail nursery reselling bushes, so ordinary spring resale profits were foreseeable. But the unusually profitable landscaping-contract profit is special; Bloom couldn't be charged with it unless it knew, when negotiating, that the "large spring project" included that particular contract. Therefore the decisive issue is whether Bloom knew that the "large spring project" included the landscaping contract. The other answers miss the mark. Whether Bloom knew GrowRight intended to resell in ordinary spring sales only establishes the baseline general damages, not the extraordinary landscaping profit. Whether GrowRight can prove the landscaping profit using contract price and actual costs goes to amount/proof of damages, not whether that damages category is recoverable from Bloom. Whether GrowRight acted reasonably to obtain replacement rose bushes after late delivery concerns mitigation and may reduce damages, but doesn't determine whether the special profit is recoverable at all. Study tip: for consequential damages, ask "What did defendant know at contract formation?" If special profits weren't communicated, they're generally not recoverable—distinguish foreseeability from proof and mitigation.

Question 6

An arena had contracted with a promoter to host a 10-concert series beginning August 15 for a fixed rental fee per concert. The arena then hired SoundStage Productions to renovate and install a new sound system, telling SoundStage that the system had to be ready by August 1 for the concert series. SoundStage did not finish the work until September 1. The concert series was canceled, and the arena sued SoundStage for the rental fees it would have received from the promoter. SoundStage has admitted that its delay was a breach of the renovation contract.

Which of the following facts, if true, is most important in determining whether the arena can recover the lost rental fees from SoundStage?

  1. Before August 1, the promoter had already decided to cancel the concert series because of slow ticket sales and had informed the arena of that decision. (correct answer)
  2. SoundStage did not learn the amount of the fixed rental fee per concert until after the renovation was completed.
  3. The arena had never before hosted a concert series by this promoter and had no prior history of similar rental income at the arena.
  4. SoundStage's delay was caused by a late delivery of a specialized speaker component, and SoundStage made reasonable efforts to obtain a substitute before August 1.
Explanation: Whenever you see a question about consequential damages — like lost rental fees — remember the loss must be both caused by the breach and foreseeable from the contract. Here, SoundStage admitted breach, so the fight is over causation. The key fact is whether the promoter had already decided to cancel before August 1 and told the arena. If true, the concert series would have been canceled even if SoundStage finished on time; the delay was not the actual cause of the lost fees. That makes the arena's loss a failed venture, not a result of SoundStage's breach. The fact that SoundStage did not learn the rental fee amount until later speaks to foreseeability of damages, but cannot overcome a total lack of causation. The arena's lack of prior rental history may affect whether lost profits are reasonably certain, but it is irrelevant if the loss was not caused by the breach. And the fact that the delay came from a late speaker component, despite reasonable substitutes, does not matter because a contractor is generally liable for breach even without fault unless an impracticability or force majeure excuse applies. On exam day, spot "but-for" causation first: if the loss would have occurred anyway, consequential damages fail regardless of foreseeability or certainty.

Question 7

Caldwell Manufacturing ordered a custom die-casting machine from Renner Industries. Before signing, Caldwell told Renner that the machine was required for a production run under a supply agreement with Vance Electronics; if the machine was not operational by February 1, Caldwell would lose the Vance agreement. Renner delivered the machine on February 10. Caldwell lost the Vance supply agreement, under which it would have earned profits of $120,000. Renner did not know the amount of Caldwell's profit margin on the Vance work, but the parties agree that the claimed lost profits are reasonably certain.

The jurisdiction's rule is:

"To recover consequential damages, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had reason to know at the time of contracting that a loss of the kind the plaintiff sustained was a probable result of breach. If the defendant has reason to know the general nature of the loss but not its probable magnitude, that does not defeat recovery. The defendant need not know the precise amount or manner of loss in order for the loss to be foreseeable."

Is Renner liable for Caldwell's $120,000 in lost profits?

  1. Yes, because Renner had reason to know at contracting that losing the Vance agreement was a probable result of late delivery, and the amount of the loss need not have been foreseeable. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, but only for the portion of lost profits Renner could have anticipated based on the profit margin it knew at contracting.
  3. No, because Renner did not know the amount of Caldwell's lost profits at the time of contracting and could not foresee the magnitude of the loss.
  4. No, because lost profits from a collateral agreement are consequential damages and cannot be recovered absent a specific warning of the dollar amount.
Explanation: Consequential damages questions test foreseeability at formation—the classic Hadley principle. Here, before signing, Caldwell told Renner that the machine had to be operational by February or Caldwell would lose its Vance supply agreement. Renner thus had reason to know that late delivery would probably cause loss of that contract. That is foreseeability of the kind of loss. The parties agree the $120,000 in lost profits are reasonably certain, so damages proof is not an issue. Even though Renner did not know Caldwell's profit margin or the precise amount, the rule says knowledge of general nature without probable magnitude does not defeat recovery, and precise amount need not be foreseen. So Renner owes the full $120,000. The correct reasoning is that Renner knew losing the Vance agreement was probable and the amount did not need to be foreseeable. The limitation to only the portion anticipated from known profit margin is wrong because magnitude or amount foreseeability is not required. The no-liability choice based on unknowable amount or magnitude repeats same misconception. The no-liability choice demanding a specific warning of dollar amount invents a requirement; notification of the Vance agreement sufficed to put Renner on notice of the kind of loss. Remember: distinguish kind from amount—if the defendant had reason to know the kind of loss, uncertainty about its size won't let him off the hook.

Question 8

Seller agreed to custom-manufacture a specialized reflow oven for Buyer, a maker of precision electronic components. At contracting, Buyer told Seller only that the oven would be installed in its main production line. Seller delivered the oven two weeks late. Because of the delay, Buyer's entire production line sat idle for two weeks, and Buyer lost $80,000 in profit on orders it would have filled. Buyer had never told Seller that its existing oven had already failed or that no substitute oven could be obtained on short notice. Buyer sues Seller for the $80,000.

Is Buyer entitled to recover the $80,000 in lost profits from Seller?

  1. No, because Buyer's loss arose from the particular lack of a substitute oven, a circumstance Seller did not know at contracting. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because Seller knew the oven was essential to Buyer's main production line.
  3. Yes, because lost profits are a natural and foreseeable consequence of delayed delivery of essential equipment.
  4. No, because Buyer's only remedy is cancellation of the contract and return of the contract price.
Explanation: Under the foreseeability rule for consequential damages, a breaching party is liable only for damages that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting, including damages arising from special circumstances that were communicated to or known by the breaching party. Here, Seller knew only that the oven would be used in Buyer's production line. The particular circumstance that Buyer had no substitute oven and would lose production profits if delivery were late was not communicated. General knowledge of an essential use is insufficient under Hadley v. Baxendale to make the seller liable for the buyer's lost business profits caused by that special lack of a substitute. Distractor B overstates the consequence of general knowledge; C is too broad because lost profits are not always naturally arising even for essential equipment; D misstates remedies, as cancellation is not the exclusive remedy.

Question 9

Regal Renovations agreed to remodel a restaurant for $300,000. The owner stopped the project after work began, and Regal sued for $40,000 in lost profits based on its estimate that the remaining work would cost $260,000. The owner responded that Regal’s estimate omitted fire-code upgrades that the city required for the remodel and that the upgrades would have made the total cost $310,000.

Which issue is most important in determining whether Regal can recover the claimed $40,000 in lost profits?

  1. Whether the owner knew when the contract was signed that Regal expected to make a profit on the remodel.
  2. Whether Regal had already purchased materials or hired subcontractors before the owner stopped the project.
  3. Whether the owner stopped the project because of Regal's delay or for an unrelated financial reason.
  4. Whether the omitted fire-code upgrades were actually required and would have made the remodel unprofitable for Regal if the owner had allowed completion. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests expectation damages for breach of contract. The goal is to put the nonbreaching party in the same economic position it would have occupied had the contract been performed. So when a contractor sues for lost profits, the key question is always: would the contract actually have produced a profit? Here, Regal's $40,000 claim assumes the $300,000 contract would have yielded a $40,000 profit. The owner disputes that assumption by pointing to omitted fire-code upgrades that would push total cost to $310,000. If that is true, completing the remodel would have produced a $10,000 loss, not profit. Therefore, the most important issue is whether those upgrades were truly required and whether they erased the anticipated profit. As for the other choices: whether the owner knew Regal expected a profit is irrelevant to calculating direct lost profits on the contract itself — that knowledge matters more for consequential damages. Whether Regal had already bought materials or hired subcontractors might show reliance damages or affect cost savings, but it does not prove lost profit. And whether the owner stopped the project because of Regal's delay or for an unrelated reason could matter to liability, but it does not address whether the contract would have been profitable. Study tip: In lost-profit claims, always separate profit from costs. A breaching party can defeat the claim by showing the contract would have been unprofitable — so test the cost assumptions carefully.

Question 10

Metro Transit Authority hired Apex Electric to do all electrical work on a new light-rail station. The prime contract between Metro and Apex required Apex to finish by March 1 and stated that for each week of delay Apex would owe Metro a $50,000 liquidated damages payment. Apex then subcontracted the lighting installation to Bright Lite. Bright Lite was not told about the March 1 deadline, the liquidated damages clause, or why timely installation mattered. Bright Lite finished three weeks late under its subcontract, causing Apex to pay Metro $150,000 in liquidated damages. Apex sues Bright Lite to recover that $150,000.

Is Bright Lite liable to Apex for the $150,000?

  1. No, unless Apex can show Bright Lite had reason to know of Apex's liquidated-damages exposure when the subcontract was made. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because Apex's liability to Metro was a direct consequence of Bright Lite's delay.
  3. Yes, because the liquidated damages clause was in an upstream contract and Bright Lite had constructive notice of industry practice.
  4. No, because liquidated damages are penalties and therefore can never be recovered from a subcontractor in a breach-of-contract action.
Explanation: Assuming the liquidated damages clause is enforceable, Apex can recover these consequential damages from Bright Lite only if the loss was reasonably foreseeable to Bright Lite at the time of contracting. Apex's obligation to pay liquidated damages to Metro was a special circumstance arising from Apex's upstream contract. Because Bright Lite was not told of the prime contract's deadline or the liquidated damages clause, it had no reason to know Apex would suffer this specific $150,000 loss, so the payment is too remote. Distractor B ignores the requirement of foreseeable special circumstances; C wrongly assumes constructive notice without facts; D is wrong because liquidated damages clauses are not categorically unenforceable or nonrecoverable—they are unenforceable only if they constitute a penalty, and nothing in the facts indicates that.

Question 11

Barton Manufacturing contracted with Delgado Equipment to purchase a custom conveyor system. Before signing, Barton told Delgado that the system was needed for a government contract with a strict completion date and that each week's delay would cause Barton to forfeit $50,000 in progress payments. Delgado did not know—and Barton did not mention—that Barton hoped to use the same system to bid on follow-on work from the government. Delgado delivered three weeks late; Barton forfeited $150,000 under the government contract and lost the follow-on work, which would have yielded profits of $200,000. The jurisdiction's rule on consequential damages is:

"Damages for breach are recoverable for losses arising in the ordinary course of events from the breach. Losses arising from special circumstances are recoverable only if the breaching party, at time of contracting, had reason to know of those special circumstances. A party has reason to know special circumstances if they were communicated to it or it had other reason to know them. Damages are not recoverable for losses that it did not have reason to foresee as a probable result of the breach at the time of contracting."

Under the rule, which damages is Barton most likely entitled to recover from Delgado?

  1. $150,000 in forfeited progress payments and $200,000 in lost follow-on profits
  2. $150,000 in forfeited progress payments only (correct answer)
  3. $200,000 in lost follow-on profits only
  4. Neither the forfeited progress payments nor the lost follow-on profits
Explanation: When you see a damages question, your first move is to separate ordinary losses from special or consequential losses. Under the stated rule, ordinary losses are always recoverable, but special-circumstances losses are recoverable only if the breaching party had reason to know those circumstances at contracting. Here, Barton told Delgado before signing that the conveyor was needed for a government contract with a strict completion date and that each week's delay would cost $50,000. That communication gave Delgado reason to know the forfeited progress payments were a probable result of late delivery. So Barton can recover the $150,000 forfeited. Barton never mentioned the follow-on work, and Delgado had no other reason to know about it. Those lost profits arose from special circumstances that were not foreseeable at the time of contracting, so they are not recoverable. The choice including both the forfeited payments and the follow-on profits wrongly treats the undisclosed follow-on work as foreseeable. The choice seeking only the follow-on profits ignores the recoverable progress-payment loss and misidentifies the foreseeable harm. The choice denying both damages fails because the $150,000 was specifically communicated and therefore foreseeable. Only the choice for the forfeited progress payments alone matches the rule. Study tip: on consequential-damages questions, ask yourself, "What did the seller actually know or have reason to know when the deal was made?" The test punishes losses that were communicated or obvious — but not secret hopes or side opportunities.

Question 12

Precision Machine Works agreed to sell and deliver a custom lathe to Buyer by May 1. Seller knew Buyer planned to use the lathe in a new production line starting May 15. Seller breached and did not deliver until June 1. On May 15, before Buyer had received the lathe or a substitute, a tornado destroyed Buyer's factory building. Buyer sues Seller for lost profits for the period from May 15 through the five-year useful life of the lathe, claiming that had Seller performed on time, Buyer would have begun earning profits before the tornado struck.

Which of the following states the correct measure of Buyer's recovery, if any, for lost profits?

  1. Buyer may recover only the lost profits, if any, it proves it would have earned before the tornado, and none for the period after the tornado. (correct answer)
  2. Buyer may recover lost profits for the entire five-year period because, had Seller delivered on time, Buyer would have had the lathe and could have resumed production after the tornado.
  3. Buyer may recover nothing because the tornado was a force majeure event that Seller could not have foreseen.
  4. Buyer may recover nothing because its failure to obtain a substitute lathe before the tornado was a failure to mitigate.
Explanation: Contract damages must be caused in fact by the breach. A loss that Buyer would have suffered even if Seller had performed is not attributable to the breach. The tornado would have destroyed Buyer's factory on May 15 regardless of whether Seller delivered the lathe on May 1, so lost profits after the tornado were caused by the tornado, not by Seller's delay. Buyer may, however, seek to prove that it would have earned net profits before the tornado and recover those. B is wrong because having the lathe before the tornado would not have prevented the factory's destruction. C is wrong because the tornado's unforeseeability does not bar recovery of pre-tornado losses caused by the delay. D is wrong because Buyer had no duty to obtain a substitute lathe when doing so could not have avoided the tornado loss.

Question 13

Fresh Sound, a company that had never before sold merchandise, contracted with Tee Print to print 8,000 T-shirts for a three-day music festival. Tee Print knew before the contract was signed that Fresh Sound intended to resell the shirts at the festival and that the shirts had to arrive by the festival's opening day. Tee Print delivered after the festival ended, and Fresh Sound could not obtain substitute shirts from any other printer. Fresh Sound sued Tee Print for lost profits, relying on a written expression of interest from the festival sponsor to buy 3,000 shirts and on projected sales to other attendees.

Which additional fact, if true, would most strengthen Fresh Sound's claim for lost profits?

  1. Fresh Sound's manager had profitably sold T-shirts at the same festival in prior years while working for another company.
  2. Fresh Sound had told Tee Print before contracting that late delivery would cause it to lose the sponsor order and other sales.
  3. The sponsor's expression of interest was a binding purchase order, with a fixed price and quantity, and Fresh Sound's actual cost per shirt was known before the festival. (correct answer)
  4. Fresh Sound had set its retail prices by studying prices charged by T-shirt vendors at several comparable music festivals.
Explanation: Whenever you see a lost-profits question, remember the two-part test: damages must have been foreseeable at the time of contracting (Hadley) and the loss must be provable with reasonable certainty — not speculative reconstruction. Tee Print already knew the resale purpose and deadline, so foreseeability largely established. The real battle here is certainty. B binding purchase order with fixed price and quantity, coupled with a known actual cost per shirt, does exactly that: it pins down the precise profit on 3,000 shirts(price minus cost times quantity). That concrete number replaces vague expressions of interest and projected walks-up sales, making the lost profit reasonably certain. It also ties directly to the sponsor order mentioned in the facts. The manager's prior profitable sales at the same festival for another company show that selling shirts there could be profitable, but they describe someone else's sales territory, not Fresh Sound's specific, calculable loss — evocative but still speculative. Telling Tee Print before contracting that late delivery would cost the sponsor order and other sales strengthens foreseeability, which was largely already satisfied, but it does nothing to prove the actual amount of lost profit; it is notice, not evidence of damages. Studying retail prices at comparable festivals shows a thoughtful pricing method, but pricing alone cannot establish how many shirts would have sold or what profit would have been; it lacks the definitive quantity and price lockfound in the binding purchase order. The trap is to pick facts that sound like diligent business planning or reasonable notice when the real deficit is evidentiary certainty hospot packages: for lost profits, ask two questions — was the loss foreseeable, and is the amount reasonably certain? A binding order or contract with fixed terms is always stronger than expressions of interest, projections, or comparisons from other ventures.