英美合同法案例.docx

英美合同法案例.docx

《英美合同法案例.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英美合同法案例.docx（5页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

英美合同法案例

英美合同法案例

HandicappedChildren’sEducationBoardofSheboyganCountyv.Lukaszewski,

112Wis.ed197,SupremecourtofWisconsin,1983

Callow,Justice.

ThisreviewarisesoutofanunpublisheddecisionofthecourtofappealswhichaffirmedinpartandreversedinpartajudgmentoftheOzaukeecountycircuitcourt,JudgeWarrenA.Grady.

InJanuaryof1978theHandicappedChildren’sEducationBoard（hereafterreferredtoasthe

“Board”）hiredElaineLukaszewskitoserveasaspeechandlanguagetherapistforthespringterm.LukaszewskiwasassignedtotheLightfootSchoolinSheboyganFallswhichwasapproximately45milesfromherhomeinMequon.Ratherthanmove,shedrovetoworkeachday.Duringthe1978springterm,theBoardofferedLukaszewskiacontracttocontinueinherpositionatLightfootSchoolforthe1978—1979schoolyear.Thecontractcalledforanannualsalaryof

10,760.Lukaszewskiaccepted.

InAugustof1978,priortothebeginningoftheschoolyear,LukaszewskiwasofferedapositionbytheWeeCareDayCareCenterwhichwaslocatednorfarfromherhomeinMequon.Thejobpaidanannualsalaryof,13,000.Afterdecidingtoacceptthisoffer,

LukaszewskinotifiedThomasMorrelle,theBoard’sdirectorofspecialeducation,thatshe

intendedtoresignfromherpositionattheLightfootSchool.MorrelletoldhertosubmitaletterofresignationforconsiderationbytheBoard.Shedidso.,andthematterwasdiscussedatameetingoftheBoardonAugust21,1978.TheBoardrefusedtoreleaseLukaszewskifromhercontract.OnAugust24,1978,theBoard’sattorneysentalettertoLukaszewskidirectinghertoreturntowork.TheattorneysentasecondlettertotheWeeCareDayCareCenterstatingthattheBoardwouldtakelegalactioniftheCenterinterferedwithLukaszewski’sperformanceofhercontractual

obligationsattheLightfootSchool.

LukaszewskilefttheWeeCareDayCareCenterandreturnedtoLightfootSchoolforthe1978fallterm.SheresenttheactionsoftheBoard,however,andretainedmisgivingsaboutherjob.OnSeptember8,1978,shediscussedherfeelingwithMorrelle.AfterthismeetingLukaszewskifeltquiteupsetaboutthesituation.Shecalledherdoctortomakeanappointmentforthatafternoonandsubsequentlylefttheschool.

Dr.AshokChatterjeeexaminedLukaszewskiandfoundherbloodpressuretobehigh.LukaszewskiaskedDr.Chatterjeetowritealetterexplaininghismedicalfindingsandtheadvicehehadgivenher.InaletterdatedSeptember11,1978,Dr.ChatterjeeindicatedthatLukaszewskihadahypertensionproblemdatingbackto1976.HereportedthatonthedayheexaminedLukaszewskisheappearedagitated,nervous,andhadbloodpressurereadingsupto180/100.Itwashisopinionthat,althoughshetookmedicine,hermedicalconditionwouldnotimproveunlessthesituationwhichcausedtheproblemwasremoved.Hefurtheropinedthatitwouldbedangerousforhertodrivelongdistancesinheragitatedstate.

LukaszewskididnotreturntoworkafterleavingonSeptember8,1978.ShesubmittedaletterofresignationdatedSeptember13,1978,inwhichshewrote:

“Iencloseacopyofthedoctor’sstatementconcerningmyhealth.Onthebasisofit,Imust

resign.IamunwillingtojeopardizemyhealthandIamalsounwillingtobecomeinvolvedinan

accident.Forthesereasons,Itendermyresignation.”

AshorttimelaterLukaszewskireappliedforandobtainedemploymentattheWeeCareDayCareCenter.

AfterLukaszewskileft,theBoardimmediatelybeganlookingforareplacement.Onlyonequalifiedpersonappliedfortheposition.AlthoughthisapplicanthadlessofaneducationalbackgroundthanLukaszewski,shehadmoreteachingexperienceUnderthesalaryscheduleagreeduponbytheBoardandtheteachers’union,thisapplicantwouldhavetobepaid

1,026.64moreperyearthanLukaszewski.Havingnoalternative,theBoardhiredthe

applicantatthehighersalary.

InDecemberof1978theBoardinitiatedanactionagainstLukaszewskiforbreachofcontract.TheBoardallegedthat,asaresultofthebreach,itsuffereddamageintheamountoftheadditionalcompensationitwasrequiredtopayLukaszewski’sreplacementforthe

1978—1979schoolyear（,1,026.64）.Atrialwasheldbeforethecourt.ThetrialcourtruledthatLukaszewskihadbreachedhercontractandawardedtheBoard,1,249.14indamages

（,1,026.64forbreachofcontractand,222.50forcosts）

Lukaszewskiappealed.Thecourtofappealsaffirmedthetrialcourt’sdeterminationthat

Lukaszewskibreachedhercontract.However,theappellatecourtreversedthetrialcourt’sdamage

award,reasoningthat,althoughtheBoardhadtopaymoreforLukaszewski’sreplacement,byits

ownstandardsitobtainedaproportionatelymorevaluableteacher.Therefore,thecourtofappealsheldthattheBoardsufferednodamagefromthebreach.WegrantedtheBoard’spetitionfor

review.

Therearetwoissuepresentedonthisreview:

（1）whetherLukaszewskibreachedheremploymentcontractwiththeBoard;and

（2）ifshedidbreachedhercontract,whethertheBoardsufferedrecoverabledamagestherefrom.

Ahealthdangerwillnotexcusenonperformanceofacontractualobligationwhenthedangeriscausedbythenonperformingparty.Norwillahealthconditionordangerwhichwasforeseeablewhenthecontractwasenteredintojustifyitsbreach.Itwouldbefundamentallyunfairtoallowabreachingpartytoescapeliabilitybecauseofahealthdangerwhichbyhisorherownfaulthasprecludedperformance.Thetrialcourtsfindingsarecorrectthat

（1）Lukaszewski’smedical

conditionresultedfromthe“stressshehadcreatedbyanattemptedrepudiationofhercontract,”

and

（2）thatLukaszewskiresignedforreasonsotherthanhealth.ForthisreasonweaffirmtheholdingsbelowthatLukaszewskibreachedheremploymentcontract.

Intheinstantcaseitisundisputedthat,asaresultofthebreach,theBoardhiredareplacementatasalaryexceedingwhatithadagreedtopayLukaszewski.Thereisnoquestionthatthisadditionalcost（$1,026.64）necessarilyflowedfromthebreachandwasnotwithinthecontemplationofthepartieswhenthecontractwasmade.Lukaszewskiarguesandcourtofappealsheld,however,thattheBroadwasnotdamagedbythisexpense.Theamountateacherispaidisdeterminedbyasalaryscheduleagreeduponbytheteachers’unionandtheBroad.The

moreeducationandexperienceateacherhasthegreaterhersalarywillbe.Presumably,then,theamountofcompensationateacherreceivesreflectshervaluetotheBroad.LukaszewskiarguesthattheBroadsufferednonetlossbecause,whileithadtopaymoreforthereplacement,itreceivedtheservicesofaproportionatelymorevaluableteacher.Accordingly,shemaintainsthattheBroadisnotentitledtodamagesbecauseanawardwouldplaceitinabetterpositionthanifthecontracthadbeenperformed.

Wedisagree.LukaszewskiandthecourtofappealsimproperlyfocusontheobjectivevalueoftheservicestheBroadreceivedratherthanthatforwhichithadbargained.Damagesforbreachofcontractaremeasuredbytheexpectationsoftheparties.TheBroadexpectedtoreceivetheservicesofaspeechtherapistwithlukaszewski’seducationandexperienceatthesalaryagree

upon.Itneitherexpectednorwantedamoreexperiencedtherapistwhohadtobepaidanadditional$1,026.64peryear.Lukaszewaki’sbreachforcedtheBroadtohirethereplacementand,

inturn,topayahighersalary.Therefore,theBroadlostthebenefitofitsbargain.AnyadditionalvaluetheBroadmayhavereceivedfromthereplacement’sgreaterexperiencewasimposedupon

itandthuscannotbecharacterizedasabenefit.WeconcludethattheBroadsuffereddamagesforthelossofitsbargainintheamountofadditionalcompensationitwasrequiredtopayLukaszewski’sreplacement.

Thisisnottosaythatanemployerwhoisinjuredbyanemployee’sbreachofcontractisfree

tohirethemostqualifiedandexpensivereplacementandthenrecoverthedifferencebetweenthesalarypaidandthecontractsalary.Aninjuredpartymusttakeallreasonablestepstomitigatedamages.Therefore,theemployermustattempttoobtainequivalentservicesatthelowestpossiblecost.IntheinstantcasetheBroadactedreasonablyinhiringLukaszewaki’sreplacement

eventhoughshecommandedahighersalary.UponLukaszewski’sbreach,theBroadimmediately

tookstepstolocateareplacement.Onlyonequalifiedpersonappliedfortheposition.Havingnoalternative,theBroadhiredthisapplicant.ThustheBroadproperlymitigateditsdamagesbyhiringtheleastexpensivequalifiedreplacementavailable.

WeholdthattheBoardisentitledtohavethebenefitofitsbargainrestored.Therefore,wereversethatportionofthecourtofappeal’sdecisionwhichreversedthetrialcourt’sdamage

award.

Thedecisionofthecourtofappealsisaffirmedinpartandreveredinpart.Questions:

1.Whosueswhomforwhatinthiscase?

2.Whatisthedecisionofthetrialcourt?

3.Whatisthedecisionofthecourtofappeals?

4.Whatarethereasonsgivenbythecourtofappealsforitsdecision?

5.Intheopinionofthepresentcourt,didthedefendantbreachthecontract?

Whyorwhynot?

6.Intheopinionofthepresentcourt,shouldthedefendantpaydamagestotheplaintiff?

Whyorwhynot?

7.Towhatextentahealthconditionwilljustifyrepudiationofanemploymentcontract?

8.Whatistheprincipleofdamagecomputationasembodiedinthisopinion?

AcmeMill&ElevatorCo.v.Johnson

141Ky.718（CourtofappealsofKentucky,1911）

OnApril26,1909,JohnsoncontractedwithAcmeMills&ElevatorCompanytosell2,000bushelsofNo,2merchantablewheat,toAcmeMillsatthep