Question

Ms. Johnson, a single mother with three children, lived in Oregon. Trish Smith also lived in Oregon until she moved to New York City to open and operate an art gallery. Smith contacted Johnson and invited her to manage the gallery under a one-year contract for an annual salary of $78,000. To begin work, Johnson relocated to New York. As part of the move, Ms. Johnson transferred custody of her children to her husband, who lived in Italy. In accepting the job, Johnson also forfeited her husband’s alimony and child-support payments, including unpaid amounts of nearly $30,000. Before Johnson started work, Smith repudiated the contract. Unable to find employment for more than an annual salary of $25,000, Johnson moved to Italy to be near her children. Johnson filed a suit in an Oregon state court against Smith, seeking damages for breach of contract. Should the court hold, as Smith argued, that Johnson did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Court should hold this case against the Smith because smith cheated Johnson by breaking the contract. According to the court of law cheating was one of the biggest crime which should not be done to others. By keeping trust on smith’s contract Johnson migrated to New York but she cheated her. Court should support Johnson because she should mitigate all her damages which were done by Smith. Once there was a breach of contract between the two persons and if any one break the contract before the time period then other person should rectify all the damages of the other person.

But smith was arguing that Johnson does not take the reasonable steps to mitigate her damages. If smith does not give some amount to the Johnson how did she mitigate all her damages. So, according to my point of view Johnson should claim against the smith and on behalf of the court Smith should give minimum half amount to the Johnson for breaking the contract so that Johnson can mitigate some damages.