No. The company cannot keep working and charge for it after being told to stop. The court said it's a basic rule that you can't make a situation worse just to get more money from the person who broke a promise. The bridge company's right was to be paid for the work it had already done, plus the profit it expected to make. Forcing the county to pay for a useless bridge it specifically cancelled would be wasteful and unfair. The company should have stopped working right away and then sued for its losses up to that point.

No, the bridge company was wrong to keep building after being told to stop. The court said Luten Bridge Company should have stopped work as soon as Rockingham County told them the deal was off. By continuing to build, Luten Bridge Company wasn't allowed to make the county pay more than they otherwise would. The court said the bridge company should only get money for the work they did before being told to stop, plus the profit they would have made if they finished the whole job. Letting the bridge company build the whole thing anyway would be a waste and goes against the rule that says you have to keep your losses as low as possible when the other side backs out of a deal.

No, it is not okay for a company to keep building a bridge after being told to stop just so the county has to pay more. We hold that Luten Bridge Company should have stopped work as soon as Rockingham County told them the deal was off. By continuing to build, Luten Bridge Company cannot make the county pay more than they otherwise would. The bridge company should only receive money for the work they did before being told to stop, plus the profit they would have made if they finished the whole job. Letting the bridge company build the whole thing anyway is a waste and goes against the rule that says you have to keep your losses as low as possible when the other side backs out of a deal.

—a contractor continued building a bridge after the county voted to terminate the contract, and was ultimately barred from recovering damages following the county's repudiation.

Indeed, following the first party' s failure to perform, not only is the other party freed from its own obligation to perform; the other party is also under a so-called duty to mitigate its damages, so that if the other party does perform it cannot look to the first party for payment.

On this ground, a builder that had contracted with a county to construct a bridge for a county road was denied recovery for expenditures incurred after the county had decided not to build the road and notified the builder to stop. Id

This longstanding doctrine applies to ratify the actions of government officers whose positions may be technically defective but whose actions assure that the government operates effectively.

—when "county gave notice to the plaintiff that it would not proceed with the project, plaintiff... had no right thus to pile up damages by proceeding with the erection of a useless bridge

—holding that where plaintiff receives notice of breach, plaintiff has a duty to mitigate defendant's damages

—with UCC § 2-704 (2003)(allowing seller, after breach of contract, to complete the manufacture of the good so as not to waste work already in process).

Even if the repudiation is entirely anticipatory, the weight of authority denies the promisee an election to proceed with performance at the repudiator's expense, precedence being given to the rule of mitigation.

He might have been excused if he had ceased performance after the second CCC program was put into operation, but he should not be allowed to recover damages which were avoidable.

Judge Posner' s formulation also comports with an alternate, equivalent calculation equal to all expenditures incurred plus the overall profit on the contract

No, the non-breaching party may not continue to perform and increase damages after receiving notice of repudiation. After a contract is breached, the non-breaching party has a duty to mitigate damages and cannot recover for work performed after the repudiation. The court reasoned that this principle prevents the non-breaching party from inflicting additional, unnecessary damage on the breaching party. To allow a party to continue performance after a clear cancellation would force the breaching party to pay for work it does not want and that may be useless, while the non-breaching party is only entitled to be made whole, which includes profits it would have earned. Citing established precedent like Clark v. Marsiglia, the court held that Luten Bridge Company's remedy was to treat the contract as broken when notice was received and sue for damages sustained up to that point, including expenses incurred and any lost profit.

No, the plaintiff does not have the right to continue performance after receiving unequivocal notice of the defendant's breach. The court held that Luten Bridge Company should have ceased construction of the bridge when it received notice of Rockingham County's repudiation of the contract. By continuing to build the bridge, Luten Bridge Company could not increase the damages it was entitled to recover from the county. The proper measure of damages is the amount sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for labor and materials expended and expenses incurred in partial performance of the contract prior to the repudiation, plus the profit that would have been realized if the contract had been fully performed. The court reasoned that allowing a plaintiff to continue performance after a clear breach by the defendant would result in economic waste and violate the rule requiring a party not in default to mitigate damages.

No, a plaintiff does not have the right to continue performance after receiving notice of the defendant's breach of an executory contract in order to increase the damages recoverable from the defendant. Luten Bridge Company should have ceased construction of the bridge when it received notice of Rockingham County's repudiation of the contract. By continuing to build the bridge, Luten Bridge Company could not increase the damages it was entitled to recover from the county. The proper measure of damages is the amount sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for labor and materials expended and expenses incurred in partial performance of the contract prior to the repudiation, plus the profit that would have been realized if the contract had been fully performed. Allowing a plaintiff to continue performance after a clear breach by the defendant would result in economic waste and violate the rule requiring a party not in default to mitigate damages.

Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot