Baldwin v. Bennett, 4 Cal. 392 (Cal. 1854). · Go Syfert
Search
Baldwin v. Bennett, 4 Cal. 392 (Cal. 1854). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
69 citation events across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Fivey v. Chambers (calctapp, 1962-01-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1905 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1905 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fivey v. Chambers
Cal. Ct. App. · 1962 · confidence medium
(Contract price: Oliver v. Campbell, 43 Cal.2d 298, 302-307 [ 273 P.2d 15 ] (fixed fee); Jones v. Martin, 41 Cal.2d 23, 27 [ 256 P.2d 905 ] (contingent fee); Denio v. City of Huntington Beach, 22 Cal.2d 580, 591 [ 140 P.2d 392 , 149 A.L.R. 320 ] (contingent fee); Bartlett v. Odd Fellows Savings Bank, 79 Cal. 218, 222 [ 21 P. 743 , 12 Am.St.Rep. 139 ] (contingent fee); Webb v. Trescony, 76 Cal. 621, 622-623 [ 18 P. 796 ] (fixed fee); 5 Baldwin v. Bennett, 4 Cal. 392, 393-394 (fixed fee); Hendricks v. Sefton, supra, 180 Cal.App.2d 526, 533 (contingent fee); Jones v. Brown, 84 Cal.App.2d 390, 393…
DRURY P. BALDWIN
v.
WILLIAM C. BENNETT
California Supreme Court.
Oct 15, 1854.
4 Cal. 392
S. P. Barber, for Appellant., Halleck, Peachy, Billings & Park, for Eespondent.
Heydeneeldt, Murray.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

The general rule as to measure of damages in an action for breach of contract, is correctly given by appellant’s counsel. It “is not the whole price agreed to be paid, but the actual loss sustained, which will consist of the value of the services rendered and the damage sustained by the refusal to allow performance of the rest of the contract.”

To this rule there are, however, some exceptions. Where, from the nature of the contract, as in this case, no possible mode is left of ascertaining the damage, we will have presented the anomalous case of a wrong without a remedy,[*394] unless we adopt the only measure of damages which remains, and that is, the price agreed to be paid. Without [394] ' this, justice would be * defeated, and parties encouraged to violate their contracts of similar character. The defendant not only breaks his contract, but also deprives the party of showing the amount of injury under the general rule. He cannot complain that a different rule is invoked, when it is the only one left to make him responsible for his want of good faith. This reasoning was adopted in a case precisely similar, by the Supreme Court of Alabama. ( See Hunt v. Test, 8 Ala. 713.)

Judgment affirmed.