Admiral Financial Corporation v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that restitution would be a “windfall” where there were indications that the non-breaching party would have failed financially regardless of the breach
• noting reliance damages are \ordinarily a second-best alternative to a party injured by breach who cannot prove damages measured by expectation\ (quoting Restatement of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 38 cmt. a (Tentative Draft No. 3 2004) )
• discussing the remedy of rescission and explaining what constitutes a “total breach”
• “[Restitution] has been recognized as an alternative measure of contract damages when a plaintiff’s expectation damages are difficult to ascertain.”
• “[T]he government’s reservation of the right to change the extent of its performance as to some of its promises does not render the contract illusory as long as the government has otherwise given consideration, as is plainly the case here.”
• “the trial court had ample evidence to conclude that Admiral’s expectancy damages attributable to the government’s breach were zero. It was not necessary for the trial court to use restitution as an alternative measure of damages, since expectancy was not in doubt.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).