You are here: / / Lost Profits Not Recoverable—Too Speculative and Not Contemplated...

Lost Profits Not Recoverable—Too Speculative and Not Contemplated in the Agreement

The First Department determined the agreement between the parties did not contemplate lost profits and, therefore, lost profits could not be awarded as damages for the breach:

Nevertheless, the court properly concluded that [plaintiff] was not entitled to recover lost profits. To the extent [plaintiff] seeks lost profits for a five-year period, such damages are speculative, as its assumption that it would have remained in contract with [defendant] for five years could not be established with reasonable certainty. To the extent it seeks lost profits in the amount of $1 million for 2010 (i.e., $500,000 for two seasons), such lost profits were not within the contemplation of the parties as a probable result of a breach at the time they entered into the agreement and could not be established with reasonable certainty … . The evidence surrounding the negotiation and execution of the contract does not show that the parties expected [defendant] to bear the responsibility for any lost profits sustained by [plaintiff]. Indeed, all the witnesses acknowledged that sales revenue of $500,000 per season was mere expectation, and [defendant’s] principal testified that he would not guarantee minimum sales in his sales agreements, especially with emerging designers, as there were “too many variables involved in procuring success in sales in our very competitive and fickle industry.” Such evidence undermines the conclusion that the parties contemplated that [defendant] would assume liability for [plaintiff’s] loss of anticipated revenue … . Olsenhaus Pure Vegan LLC v Electric Wonderland Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02343, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, IN THE FACE OF AWARDING DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE (ROSNER) WHICH WERE NOT DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ROSNER’S EMPLOYMENT OR TO FURTHER TOMS’ BUSINESS (FIRST DEPT). ​
NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
RARE CASE IN WHICH A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY MAY RENDER THE CITY LIABLE FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL; BECAUSE THE DELAY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF A DELIBERATE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY MAY NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITHOUT FATHER’S CONSENT AND WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defense Counsel Did Not Provide Effective Assistance Denial of For Cause Juror Challenges Required Reversal