Gruber v. S-M News Co.
126 F. Supp. 442 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff's expectation damages from a breach of contract are too speculative to prove, the plaintiff may recover reliance damages for expenditures made in preparation for performance. This recovery will be reduced by any loss that the defendant can prove the plaintiff would have suffered had the contract been fully performed, with the burden of proving such a loss resting on the defendant.
Facts:
- Around September 10, 1945, plaintiffs, card manufacturers, entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with the defendant, S-M News Co.
- Plaintiffs promised to manufacture 90,000 sets of twelve Christmas greeting cards in conformity with approved samples.
- Defendant promised to use reasonable diligence, its sales organization, and national advertising to sell the 90,000 sets.
- The agreement stipulated defendant would pay plaintiffs eighty-four cents for each set sold at retail, with credit for any unsold sets returned to plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs manufactured and packed the 90,000 sets as agreed and were ready for shipment by the second week of October.
- On October 2, 1945, plaintiffs notified defendant that the card sets were ready.
- Defendant then refused to perform its obligations under the contract, having only shown samples to four of its over 700 wholesalers.
- Years later, in 1949, plaintiffs were only able to sell 40,000 of the card sets for six cents per set.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued defendant in federal district court for breach of contract.
- At the first trial, the district court dismissed the complaint on the merits at the close of plaintiffs' case, finding the agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the Statute of Frauds did not apply.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a plaintiff's expectation damages for breach of contract are too speculative to calculate, must their recovery of reliance damages be reduced by any loss the plaintiff would have suffered had the contract been fully performed, and who bears the burden of proving that such a loss would have occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, District Judge
Yes. When expectation damages are too speculative, a plaintiff's recovery of reliance damages must be diminished by any loss that would have resulted from full performance, but the burden of proving that such a loss would have occurred rests on the defendant as the breaching party. The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to exercise 'reasonable diligence' in distributing the cards. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' expectation damages (lost profits) were too speculative to be calculated with reasonable certainty, as predicting the nationwide sale of novelty Christmas cards is inherently unreliable. The court then turned to reliance damages, adopting the rule that a plaintiff may recover their out-of-pocket expenses, but this amount must be offset by any loss the plaintiff would have incurred on a losing contract. Crucially, the court placed the burden of proof for establishing this loss on the defendant, because it was the defendant's breach that made it impossible to determine what the outcome would have been. Since the defendant failed to prove the plaintiffs would have lost money had the contract been performed, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their reasonable expenditures made in reliance on the contract, minus any amount salvaged from later sales.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of reliance damages as an alternative to expectation damages in breach of contract claims. It establishes a critical burden-shifting framework that protects the injured party from the uncertainty created by the breaching party's actions. By placing the burden on the defendant to prove the plaintiff was engaged in a losing venture, the court prevents the wrongdoer from using the speculative nature of the outcome—a direct result of their own breach—as a shield against liability for the plaintiff's actual, out-of-pocket costs. This principle is significant in cases involving new or unproven products where future profits are inherently difficult to prove.
Unlock the full brief for Gruber v. S-M News Co.