Winston Cigarette Mach. Co. v. Wells-Whitehead Tobacco Co.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of North Carolina |citation=141 N.C. 284*53 S.E. 885 (1906) |date=1906 |subject=Contracts |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overtur...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from= | |appealed_from= | ||
|overturned= | |overturned= | ||
|partially_overturned= | |partially_overturned= |
Latest revision as of 03:43, July 14, 2023
Winston Cigarette Mach. Co. v. Wells-Whitehead Tobacco Co. | |
Court | Supreme Court of North Carolina |
---|---|
Citation | 141 N.C. 284 53 S.E. 885 (1906) |
Date decided | 1906 |
Rule
- Whenever profits are rejected as an item in the calculation of damages, it is because they are too dependent on the fluctuations of the market to constitute a safe criterion for an estimate of damages.
- Parties when contracting can expressly provide for such enlarged responsibilities, by liquidating the amount when the damages cannot be otherwise ascertained.
- Even bad faith violation of a contract cannot reverse this rule of law.