Jackson v. Lare
2000 WL 1634304, 779 So. 2d 808 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who proves a breach of contract is not entitled to damages without providing specific, non-speculative proof of actual harm. Recovery for detrimental reliance requires a change in position to one's detriment, recovery for lost profits requires definite evidence of loss, and recovery for nonpecuniary damages requires the contract's primary purpose to be the gratification of a nonpecuniary interest.
Facts:
- The defendants, shareholders of Bellwether Management Corporation, sought to sell a Sonic Drive-In that had been burned down in Grambling, Louisiana before its completion.
- On November 10, 1996, the defendants entered into a written agreement to sell all their stock in Bellwether to Roy C. Jackson for $100.
- The agreement required Jackson to complete the Sonic, secure the release of the defendants from a bank guaranty with an outstanding balance of approximately $308,000, and hold them harmless for prior work.
- Jackson, a former assistant dean at Grambling University, began public relations work in the community to garner support for the project.
- Approximately two months after signing the agreement, the defendants sold the drive-in to a third party, Sapp-Roberson Enterprises, Inc., without first notifying Jackson.
- A non-party, Merlin Reiser, testified that Jackson admitted he could not obtain financing, a claim Jackson denied.
- Jackson and his associate, Fred Bayles, were in negotiations with the Rural Development Authority for a loan guaranty when the defendants sold the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy C. Jackson filed suit against Robert W. Lare, Jr., and the other shareholders in a Louisiana trial court, alleging breach of contract and seeking various damages.
- Following a trial, the court rendered a judgment finding that the defendants had breached the contract but that Jackson had failed to prove he suffered any damages.
- The trial court assessed court costs against the defendants.
- Jackson's motion for a partial new trial on the issue of damages was denied by the trial court.
- Jackson, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of damages to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
- The defendants, as Defendant-Appellees, answered the appeal, challenging the trial court's finding of a breach and the assessment of court costs against them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party who proves a breach of contract, but fails to provide evidence of actual financial loss, detrimental reliance, or nonpecuniary harm, have a right to recover damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaskins, J.
No, a party who proves a breach of contract is not entitled to damages without proving actual harm. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that although the defendants breached the contract, the plaintiff failed to prove he suffered any damages. For detrimental reliance, the plaintiff failed to show he changed his position to his detriment; he provided no evidence of incurred expenses for reconstruction or financing, and his own testimony contradicted his claim of reputational harm. The claim for lost profits was rejected as purely speculative, especially since testimony from the new owners established that the drive-in had not been profitable. Finally, nonpecuniary damages for humiliation were denied because the contract was a commercial investment, not one intended to gratify a nonpecuniary interest, and the plaintiff failed to prove his reputation was actually damaged.
Analysis:
This case serves as a crucial reminder that a breach of contract and a right to damages are two distinct legal issues. It reinforces the principle that a non-breaching party bears the burden of proving damages with reasonable certainty. The court's methodical rejection of claims for detrimental reliance, lost profits, and nonpecuniary damages illustrates the high evidentiary bar for each. This decision solidifies the doctrine that courts will not award damages based on speculation, conjecture, or unsupported assertions of reputational harm, particularly within a commercial context.
Unlock the full brief for Jackson v. Lare