I've been given a fact pattern, and the Prof wants me to list all possible damages (if any)
can the Defendant rightfully claim as damages. The problem is I don't think there was a breach, but there must be b/c I can't just answer "no breach, no damages." I am ussually pretty good with these; this one has me stumped.
D offers P "to come work for him" and D offers to pay P 1500.00 "net" a week.
P asks for more details. "What type of work?" D answers "I open up a smog smog shop for you, I train you for three months, you'll make at least 1000.00 a week for the first 3 months while I train you. After that you will be paid "about 1500.00" per week until the year is up, and then you can buy the shop from me, I buy it from you, or we keep the current relationship as is. P thinks about it for a week, and goes to D for more clarification. P asks about the need for a smog technician license, where the shop will be located, and how she will know how long this offer is open. D says "look all you need to do is promise me you will get your license. I don't care when you get it, but once you pass the test, come to me, tell me you passed, and in three weeks time you will have your license mailed to you. During that three weeks I will get the shop ready for you, and the shop will be in Ramsville, CA, about 60 miles from where you live." P, still not sure asks: "How do I know if I get my license, you will open a shop for me and pay me at least 1,000 a week?" D answers, "I do this all the time, I have 7 smog shops right now. What we have is a bilateral contract. You promise me you will get your license, I promise to open a shop in Ramsville, Ca, and pay you at least 1000.00 a week. My lawyer has advised me that this is a valid contract, I have done this before, I have made you an offer, if you accept, the consideration lies in those promises. Thus, we have an offer, acceptance, consideration, AND, a meeting of the minds." P tells D she accepts, they shake hands, and both parties are happy.
Two weeks later, D withdrawls his offer claiming he is burnt out, and no lomger wishes to carry out this contract. P asks why D chooses her to bail on. D reasserts he is burnt out, and no longer desires to carry out the contract.
P has turned down another job he was hired for, based on D's promise, and now is still unemployed. P had also looked around at various schools to get certified, yet did not commit to a school because no school would start their program until May, about two months after D's originsal offer.
Instructions: When answering this assignment, keep in mind the Doctrine of Good Faith, and the Doctrine of Conditional Promises. HINT: You will not pass this assignment without discussing "anticipatory breach."
Ackkk. Help! Any one do one similar. Anybody got any case law on this. This has me stumped.
Thanks in advance...
P.S. Don't do the homework for me, that's not what I'm asking. Just looking for ideas.