Damages intended to compensate the injured party for the harm suffered.Contrast with punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer,and nominal damages awarded to recognize that a right was violated or a duty breached,but no harm done.
This is the key to the argument in Part II below, where I suggest that in many situations courts may share or simply accommodate this sense regarding the folly of calculating not only expectancy damages, but also the costs and benefits of various mitigation strategies.
Yet it is not uncommon for expectancy damages to be denied because of the speculative character of these predictions.
When courts deny expectancy damages, they effectively encourage stipulation in future transactions, especially because parties have nothing to lose by stipulating; even if courts disregard the stipulation, the option of expectancy damages remains.
And we know that the provision of stipulated damages is also a means of estimating damages where the parties think that their knowledge and bargain are likely to be superior to the courts' determination of expectancy damages.