thus appears that the prime consideration in the Restatement was waste;” and that the prime “economic consideration in McCormick, Damages, and in Jacob & was the relationship between the Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, supra, expense involved and the to be attained”—in other “end words, the economic benefit.” “relative view of the unrealistic fact situation in the instant case, and certain Oklahoma statutes to be hereinafter noted, we are of the opinion that the economic benefit” is a “relative proper consideration here. This is in accord with the recent case of Mann v. Clowser, 190 Va. 887, 59 S.E.2d 78, where, in applying the cost rule, the Virginia court specifically noted that the defects are remediable from a practical “… standpoint and the costs are not grossly disproportionate to the results to be obtained” (Emphasis supplied). O.S.1961 §§ 96 and 97 provide as follows: § 96. the provisions of …Notwithstanding this chapter, no person can recover a greater amount in damages for the breach of an obligation, than he would have gained by the full performance thereof on both sides…. § 97. must, in all cases, be …Damages reasonable, and where an obligation of any kind appears to create a right to unconscionable and grossly oppressive damages, contrary to substantial justice no more than reasonable damages can be recovered. Although it is true that the above sections of the statute are applied most often in tort cases, they are by their own terms, and the decisions of this court, also applicable in actions for damages for breach of contract. It would seem that they are peculiarly applicable here where, under the of “cost performance” rule, plaintiffs might recover an amount about nine times the total value of their farm. Such would seem to be and grossly oppressive damages, contrary “unconscionable
thus appears that the prime consideration in the Restatement was “economic waste;” and that the prime consideration in McCormick, Damages, and in Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, supra, was the relationship between the expense involved and the “end to be attained”—in other words, the “relative economic benefit.” view of the unrealistic fact situation in the instant case, and certain Oklahoma statutes to be hereinafter noted, we are of the opinion that the “relative economic benefit” is a proper consideration here. This is in accord with the recent case of Mann v. Clowser, 190 Va. 887, 59 S.E.2d 78, where, in applying the cost rule, the Virginia court specifically noted that “… the defects are remediable from a practical standpoint and the costs are not grossly disproportionate to the results to be obtained” (Emphasis supplied). O.S.1961 §§ 96 and 97 provide as follows: § 96. …Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, no person can recover a greater amount in damages for the breach of an obligation, than he would have gained by the full performance thereof on both sides…. § 97. …Damages must, in all cases, be reasonable, and where an obligation of any kind appears to create a right to unconscionable and grossly oppressive damages, contrary to substantial justice no more than reasonable damages can be recovered. Although it is true that the above sections of the statute are applied most often in tort cases, they are by their own terms, and the decisions of this court, also applicable in actions for damages for breach of contract. It would seem that they are peculiarly applicable here where, under the “cost of performance” rule, plaintiffs might recover an amount about nine times the total value of their farm. Such would seem to be “unconscionable and grossly oppressive damages, contrary
ContractDoctrineTheoryPractice3_Verkerke_Dec2014.docx