Thorn v. White, 103 A.2d 579 (1954) p357.

Compensatory damages

Appellant, Thorne, contracted to put a new roof on appellee's residence and to make certain repairs in connection, therewith for the sum of $525. Thorne began the job, but then stopped a few days later and never finished the roof. White then entered into an agreement with Koons Roofing Company to have the work completed at a cost of $582.26. He sued Thorne for the difference between the prices. 1

White alleges breach of contract. The court heard the case without a jury and ruled in favor of White, and Thorne brings this appeal. White was awarded the difference, which was $357.26.

1. Was there an error in the trial court's ruling that Thorne had breached the contract?
2. If there was an error, were the damages the correct amount?

A party damaged by a breach may only recover for losses which are natural consequence and proximate result of that breach.

1. Thorne did breach the contract.
2. The damages award was too much because the second contract was different than the first: more work was done, and therefore it is natural that it would cost more.

The injured party should not be placed in a better position than he would have been in had no breach occurred. Plaintiff should only be allowed to recover what it has cost him to complete the same work, over and above the original contract price. In this case, the second contract was five steps whereas the first contract only had four steps. Instead of just laying the new roof on over the old one (the first contract), the second contract called for the removal of the old roof before the installation of a new roof, as well as several other additional items.