Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brendle Fire Equipment v. Electronic Eng.
Citations: 454 So. 2d 1032; 1984 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1408Docket: Civ. 4189
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; July 11, 1984; Alabama; State Appellate Court
The case of Brendle Fire Equipment, Inc. v. Electronic Engineers, Inc. concerns a breach of contract dispute. The plaintiff, Brendle Fire Equipment, entered into a contract with the defendant on May 1, 1976, to provide Muzak services and associated equipment for a monthly fee of $56.80. The contract was set for five years and automatically renewed for another five years. On June 19, 1982, the defendant terminated the contract unilaterally. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, calculating damages based on the remaining 42 months of the contract, resulting in a total of $2,383.60, minus $476.72 in mitigated damages, leading to $1,906.88. Additionally, $925.00 for unpaid charges prior to termination was added, totaling $2,833.88. Including a reasonable attorney's fee of $450.00, the final judgment amounted to $3,283.88, plus court costs. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that credible evidence supported the damages awarded. Testimony from the plaintiff's president indicated that damages were calculated by considering the total due for the remaining months, less certain recoverable amounts that would not incur post-termination. The plaintiff estimated that approximately 20% of the monthly charges represented expenses, which the trial court could reasonably infer would remain constant regardless of the defendant's status as a customer. The court reinforced that damages for breach of contract should restore the injured party to the position they would have occupied had the breach not occurred, allowing for recovery of lost profits that are directly tied to the breach and can be estimated with reasonable certainty. In **Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc.**, the court emphasized that damages for breach of contract do not require mathematical precision. As established in **United Bonding Insurance Co. v. W.S. Newell, Inc.**, uncertainty regarding the fact of damage, rather than its amount, does not bar recovery. When damages are reasonably certain to have occurred, uncertainty in the precise amount does not prevent a jury from awarding damages. The court maintained that evidence must provide a reasonable basis for estimating damages, and the trial court had sufficient evidence to compute damages appropriately. The decision is supported by a presumption of correctness regarding the trial court's findings. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, which included an award of $250 for the appellee’s attorney's fees related to the appeal. The opinion was authored by Retired Circuit Judge Edward N. Scruggs and adopted by the court, with all judges concurring.