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.
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.
Of course, one risk of stipulation is that the parties sacrifice the comparative-fault inquiry that is buried within expectancy damages, as it pertains to mitigation; the parties may not want super-strict liability.
The main claim here is that the very possibility of a court's declaring expectancy damages to be too speculative encourages future parties to stipulate.
When the amount of expectancy damages is hard to assess it will often be the case that both are difficult to evaluate, if only because knowledge and mitigation are intertwined.