5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Alexander v. Certified Master Builder Corp.green1 sentence2024Anything more would be "putting the Aguilar's [sic] in a better position [than] prior to the injury." The Aguilars respond that this court should assess the damages award under the "'benefit of the bargain' rule" by determining whether the damages "'are a natural and proximate consequence of the defendant's misrepresentations.'" Alexander v. Certified Master Builder Corp., 43 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 1251 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Westar Energy, Inc. v. Lakegreen1 sentence2010Westar Energy, Inc. v. Lake, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1144 (D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 498428
green
1 sentence2010Relying primarily on the Tenth Circuit opinion in C.J.C., Inc. v. Western States, 834 F.2d 1533 (10th Cir. 1987), Wittig claims the court should not independently calculate a reasonable fee or closely scrutinize fees when an agreement is based in contract. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Perry v. Schoonover Motors, Inc.
green
2 sentences1980Perry v. Schoonover Motors, 189 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 3, 371 P.2d 152 (1962); Fisher v. Mr. Harold’s Hair Lab, Inc., 215 Kan. 515 , Syl. ¶ 3, 527 P.2d 1026 (1974). 1980Perry v. Schoonover Motors, 189 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 3, 371 P.2d 152 (1962); Fisher v. Mr. Harold’s Hair Lab, Inc., 215 Kan. 515 , Syl. ¶ 3, 527 P.2d 1026 (1974). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Fisher v. Mr. Harold's Hair Lab, Inc.
green
2 sentences1980Perry v. Schoonover Motors, 189 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 3, 371 P.2d 152 (1962); Fisher v. Mr. Harold’s Hair Lab, Inc., 215 Kan. 515 , Syl. ¶ 3, 527 P.2d 1026 (1974). 1980Perry v. Schoonover Motors, 189 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 3, 371 P.2d 152 (1962); Fisher v. Mr. Harold’s Hair Lab, Inc., 215 Kan. 515 , Syl. ¶ 3, 527 P.2d 1026 (1974). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Slack v. Sodal
green
2 sentences1980In Colorado, where the benefit of the bargain rule is applied, it *519 was stated in Slack v. Sodal, 190 Colo. 411, 414 , 547 P.2d 923 (1976), as follows: “[R]easonable expenditures of a buyer to bring property into conformity with the implied warranty may be an accurate measure of the buyer’s damages and is another way of arriving at an amount representing the difference in actual value and that value as represented.” We conclude that it is implicit in the ruling of the trial court that the court did not believe it was necessary to replace the roof. 1980In Colorado, where the benefit of the bargain rule is applied, it *519 was stated in Slack v. Sodal, 190 Colo. 411, 414 , 547 P.2d 923 (1976), as follows: “[R]easonable expenditures of a buyer to bring property into conformity with the implied warranty may be an accurate measure of the buyer’s damages and is another way of arriving at an amount representing the difference in actual value and that value as represented.” We conclude that it is implicit in the ruling of the trial court that the court did not believe it was necessary to replace the roof. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Walker v. Fleming Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1974We adhere to the rule, the reason for which was expounded in Fox v. Wilson, supra, thus: “In that situation, the ‘benefit of the bargain’ rule comes into its true role, which is to carry out the concept that ‘A defrauded vendee is entitled to compensation for the contract he thought he was making and any advantage he would have obtained thereunder.’ (Walker v. Fleming Motor Co., supra, 195 Kan. at 333 .) In Epp v. Hinton, supra, we noted that in this state the ‘benefit of the bargain’ rule obtains instead of the ‘out-of-pocket’ rule, saying (p. 516): “ ‘. . . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
George v. Hesse
neutral
1 sentence1962The appellant’s requested instruction on this point, which the trial court refused to give, reads: “If you find the fact of false representation and that it had induced the trade, and if you further find from the evidence that the reasonable market value of that which Perry parted with was greater than the reasonable market value of that which he received under the contract from Schoonover Motors, then you are instructed to return a verdict for the plaintiff and if you so find, then your verdict should be the difference, if any, between the reasonable market value on the day the trade was cons | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.