Deitsch v. Music Co.
453 N.E.2d 1302, 6 Ohio B. 546, 6 Ohio Misc. 2d 6 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contract is for an event of personal significance and enjoyment, damages for breach are not limited to out-of-pocket losses but can also include compensation for distress, inconvenience, and the diminished value or enjoyment of the event.
Facts:
- On March 27, 1980, plaintiffs Carla Deitsch and her spouse entered into a contract with the defendant music company to provide a four-piece band for their wedding reception on November 8, 1980.
- The contract price was $295, and the plaintiffs paid a $65 deposit upon signing.
- Plaintiffs confirmed the engagement with the defendant via a telephone call on the night before the wedding.
- On the night of the wedding reception, the four-piece band failed to arrive.
- After being unable to contact the defendant, the plaintiffs arranged for stereo equipment to be set up as a substitute, which began playing at approximately 9:00 p.m., an hour after the reception started.
- The defendant’s president later apologized, stating his personal marital problems were affecting his business and that the failure to appear was a grievous error.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the defendant music company for breach of contract in a trial court.
- The case proceeded to a trial on September 28, 1982.
- The court found that the defendant did, in fact, breach the contract.
- The court then requested legal memoranda from both parties solely on the issue of the correct measure of damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a breach of contract action where a band fails to perform at a wedding reception, are the recoverable damages limited to the plaintiffs' out-of-pocket loss, or can they also include compensation for distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment?
Opinions:
Majority - Painter, J.
No. In a breach of contract action for failure to perform at a wedding reception, recoverable damages are not limited to out-of-pocket losses but can also include compensation for distress, inconvenience, and the diminution in value of the event. The court found that merely returning the deposit would not adequately compensate the plaintiffs, while awarding the entire cost of the reception would grossly overcompensate them. Citing precedent from cases involving failed sleeping car and hotel reservations, the court reasoned that for contracts centered on personal comfort, convenience, and enjoyment, damages must account for the non-economic harm suffered. The court concluded that the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's breach was not just a financial loss, but also the plaintiffs' distress, inconvenience, and the reduced value and enjoyment of their wedding reception.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for expanding the scope of contract damages beyond purely economic losses in the context of personal service contracts for special occasions. It establishes that non-economic harms such as emotional distress and loss of enjoyment are foreseeable consequences of a breach in these specific circumstances. This precedent allows courts to award more holistic damages that better reflect the actual harm suffered by the non-breaching party, bridging a gap between strict contract damages and tort-like damages for emotional distress in a narrow but important category of cases.
