In Hadley v. Baxendale, 8 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854), the Court of Exchequer held that a miller’s lost profits, arising from the late delivery of a replacement shaft for a steam engine in the mill, were not recoverable as consequential damages in a suit for breach of contract: “But it is obvious that, in the great multitude of cases of millers sending off broken shafts to third persons by a carrier under ordinary circumstances, such consequences would not, in all probability, have occurred, and these special circumstances were here never communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants. It follows, therefore, that the loss of profits here cannot reasonably be considered such a consequence of the breach of contract as could have been fairly and reasonably contemplated by both the parties when they made this contract.” 

The long shadow of that broken shaft was most recently seen in Signature Indus. Services, LLC v. Int’l Paper Co., which held: “The law does not charge contracting parties with a duty to understand how their actions will affect the counterparty’s market valuation. …  As a general rule, neither the counterparty’s market value nor the impact of breach on that value will be reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting. SIS … attempted to show that IP was intimately familiar with SIS’s business because of the companies’ close relationship. But again, knowledge of a business is not the same as knowledge of the market for buying and selling that business.” No. 20-0396 (Jan. 14, 2022).

In Pike v. Texas EMC Mangagment LLC,”‘Value’ was defined in the jury charge as ‘”Market Value,”’ the amount that would be paid in cash by a willing buyer who desires to buy, but is not required to buy, to a willing seller who desires to sell, but is under no necessity of selling.’”

Expert testimony sought to establish a $4.1 million value for the relevant plant and equipment, which the Texas Supreme Court rejected for three reasons:

“First, … [e]vidence of the purchase price of the Partnership’s property is insufficient under that measure because it does not establish the fair market value of the property at a different time.”

The Court also rejected efforts to corroborate the expert’s testimony with lay-opinion testimony by an owner, because that testimony was based on book rather than actual value. Foreclosure-sale price was similarly irrelevant. No. 17-0557 (June 19, 2020).

“Second, …[c]ourts employing an actual-value measure have held that ‘[f]rom that starting point, adjustments are made for wear and tear, depreciation, and other pertinent factors.’ Having examined the record, we disagree with the plaintiffs that [the expert] took anything other than purchase price—and a 20% escalation factor—into account in opining about the value of the plant and equipment.”

“Third, [the expert] did not attempt to tie the value of the plant to the market value of the
Partnership, which was the only measure of damages in the jury charge. He did not address whether any debt encumbered the plant, for example, or otherwise testify regarding how loss of the plant and equipment impacted the value of the Partnership as a whole.” (emphasis added, citations omitted).

The Court also rejected efforts to corroborate the expert’s testimony with lay-opinion testimony by an owner, because that testimony was based on book rather than actual value. Foreclosure-sale price was similarly irrelevant. No. 17-0557 (June 19, 2020).

A liquidated damages provision is enforceable, instructs Atrium Medical Center v. Houston Red C LLC, No. 18-0228 (Feb. 7, 2020), when:

1. “[T]he harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation.” A contracting party’s testimony about fluctuations and uncertainties in the relevant market, at the time the agreement was made, can satisfy this requirement.
2. “[T]he amount of liquidated damages called for is a reasonable forecast of just compensation.” Similar proof can satisfy this requirement, especially when “[t]he contract provision neither multiplies actual damages nor penalizes dissimilar breaches with the same broad brush.”
3. If the first two requirements are satisfied, then “courts must also examine whether ‘the actual damages incurred were much less’ than the liquidated damages imposed, measured at the time of the breach.” In this case, this analysis required consideration of the plaintiff’s actual expectancy damages, as well as the potential effect of mitigation.