Mitigation of Damages: Case Study Analysis and Discussion - Law

This case study delves into the legal principle of mitigation of damages within the context of contract law. It explains that the injured party has a duty to take reasonable steps to minimize losses resulting from a breach of contract. The assignment discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this principle, emphasizing that failure to mitigate can limit the damages recoverable. The core of the study is an analysis of the William v. Bright case, which illustrates the application of mitigation in a real-world scenario. The case involves a plaintiff who, due to religious beliefs, declined medical treatment, leading to a dispute over whether this failure to mitigate damages. The analysis examines how the court addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff acted reasonably in mitigating damages, considering the specific circumstances and the standard of a "reasonable person." The assignment concludes by highlighting the significance of mitigation in determining the extent of financial compensation in breach of contract cases.

Running Head: Mitigation Contract Damages
Mitigation Contract Damages
System04128
[Pick the date]

Mitigation Contract Damages
Table of Contents
Mitigate Contract Damages........................................................................................................2
Advantages.................................................................................................................................2
Disadvantages............................................................................................................................2
Case............................................................................................................................................2
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................4
1 | P a g e

Mitigation Contract Damages
Mitigate Contract Damages
In United States, the doctrine of Mitigation is the concept in contract law which states that the
victim in the breach of contract have duty to minimise the damages which arising out of
breach of contract. It means that the innocent party has legal duty to do in a way which can
tackle results of the breach and his own loss no matter what if the victim who is suffers injury
without his own fault. He has to take measures through which much loss can be averted and
can minimise the consequences of the injury. The courts will assess the actions of the victim
and will find out that whether this act could have been averted or not and a reasonable person
could have taken steps to minimise the loss or not. However, it does not mandate the victim
to take the steps which are severe and extreme in nature. If the court finds out that the person
could have mitigate the damages and could have avoided the further damages than court will
not provide the extra damages suffered by the victim due to huis negligence to act for
minimising the damages (Mitigation of Damages, 2019).
Advantages
The main advantage of mitigation damages is the innocent party will get the benefit out of it.
If the victim will not be acting to reduce the damages then he will be suffering the loss that
will incurred after the non-performance of the victim.
Disadvantages
The main disadvantage of mitigation damages is that the victim has to bear the initial loss
which arises out of breach of contract even though the victim is not responsible for the
breach. He will bear the loss and he will not even be compensated for that loss.
Case
William v Bright (William v Bright, 1997)
Gwendolyn Robbins (Plaintiff) was a traveller in a vehicle driven by her 70-year-old dad,
Charles Williams (Plaintiff), on an upstate expressway when it veered off the street and
toppled. Offended party, a rehearsing Jehovah's Witness, endured a seriously harmed hip and
knee. Because of her religious convictions, she would not experience prescribed medical
procedures to reduce the wounds since it expected her to get blood transfusions. Offended
party sued the lessor of the vehicle, Bright (Defendant). The jury discovered Defendant
careless and Defendant offered. Litigant did not challenge obligation, however protested
2 | P a g e

Mitigation Contract Damages
Plaintiff's inability to moderate harms because of her religious convictions. The preliminary
court's decision is attested and the case is remanded for another preliminary on the issue of
harms. A jury may hear and consider proof of an offended party's religious convictions in
deciding if the offended party acted sensibly in an activity which generally requires an
offended party to alleviate harms.
It is entrenched in New York that a gathering professing to have endured harm by the careless
direct of another is bound "to utilize sensible and legitimate endeavors to make the harm as
little as practicable." If a harmed gathering enables the harms to be pointlessly improved, he
ought to be in charge of the brought about misfortune. The standard jury guidance identifying
with harm moderation uses the "sensibly judicious individual" standard. Here, the
preliminary court, over the protests of Defendant, utilized the sensible Jehovah's Witness
standard.
Bibliography
3 | P a g e

Mitigation Contract Damages
Mitigation of Damages. (2019). Retrieved from LegalMatch:
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-mitigation-of-damages.html
William v Bright, 230 (A.D. 1997).
4 | P a g e