Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

Businessman holding contract

The doctrine of avoidable consequences does not allow a trial court to reduce damages “based on what ‘could have been avoided’ through Herculean efforts. It applies only where a claimant fails to undertake measures to avoid damages that are available to him without undue effort or expense.

October 2, 2018
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates

In an earlier article, I discussed an owner’s measure of damages when a contractor breaches the construction contract. This article discussed a case where the contractor elected to walk off a residential renovation job due to a payment dispute when he demanded more money and the owners did not bite. This case also discussed the commonly asserted defense known as mitigation of damages, i.e., the other party failed to properly mitigate their own damages.

In the breach of contract setting, mitigation of damages refers to those damages the other side could have reasonably avoided had he undertaken certain (reasonable) measures. This is known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences.

Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com



714.701.9180

Arrange No Cost Consultation










Subscribe to Construction Defect Journal

 

Construction Defect Journal is aggregated from a variety of news sources, article submissions, contributors, and information from industry professionals.

No content on this site should be construed as legal advice or expert opinion. By viewing this site you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions

 

Copyright 2018 - Construction Defect Journal – All Rights Reserved