Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Crestwood Park, Inc. v. Apostal
Citations: 415 N.E.2d 757; 1981 Ind. App. LEXIS 1248Docket: No. 3-178A22
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; January 28, 1981; Indiana; State Appellate Court
Joseph Apostal's petition for rehearing was denied by the court. He argued that the court's previous opinion incorrectly required an actual sale of property before determining lost profits, labeling this interpretation as unreasonable. However, the court clarified that an actual sale is not necessary to recover damages, which can be established through proof of loss resulting from a breach of contract. While Apostal acknowledged that the appropriate measure of damages was the sum that would place him in the position he would have been in had the contract not been breached, the court found insufficient evidence in the record to ascertain this amount. The dissent noted that the unimproved value of each lot at the time of breach was $1,000, with an opined improved sale value of $3,600 and development costs of $800 per lot. Despite the breach of the development agreement, which could have impacted potential net profit, Apostal failed to present evidence demonstrating increased costs or reduced profits due to Crestwood's lack of cooperation. The court emphasized that allowing Apostal to recover as the trial court had ordered would place him in a better position than if the contract had not been breached, potentially allowing him to recover more than his actual loss. Apostal's claim was based on the profits he would have made from developed lots, but he needed to show how costs increased due to the delay caused by Crestwood's breach. The court concluded that while they did not rule out the possibility of recovering lost profits entirely, Apostal had not provided sufficient evidence to establish any such profits based on the proper measure. The petition for rehearing was denied, with one judge concurring and another dissenting without opinion.