CQ, Inc. v. TXU Mining Co., L.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that four months of work by the plaintiff following a bid award was not unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement because the parties had already “contemplated that [the plaintiff] would provide such services prior to the possible entry of [the agreement]”
• limiting categories of damages available to party who failed to provide some damage computations but emphasizing that outright dismissal of claims was not appropriate
• explaining a breach of contract claim cannot stand where damages are “remote, contingent, speculative, or conjectural”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).