Cook v. Brown

8 Citing cases

  1. Cooper v. Durham

    390 So. 3d 552 (Ala. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    ; and Cook v. Brown, 428 So. 2d 59, 62 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982) (‘We readily agree that the measure of damages for the breach of a land sale contract is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of the breach.’)."

  2. Wilkens v. Kaufman

    615 So. 2d 613 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)   Cited 9 times

    The measure of damages for the breach of a contract for the sale of land is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time of the breach. Brett v. Wall, 530 So.2d 797 (Ala. 1988); Woodham v. Singletary, 545 So.2d 78 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989); Cook v. Brown, 428 So.2d 59 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). In addition, out-of-pocket damages that were proven would correct any harm from the breach.

  3. Radetic v. Murphy

    71 So. 3d 642 (Ala. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    "); Brett v. Wall, 530 So.2d 797, 798 (Ala. 1988) ("Of course, the measure of damages for the breach of a contract for the sale of land is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of the breach."); Woodham v. Singletary, 545 So.2d 78, 78 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989) ("The measure of damages for the breach of a contract involving the sale of land is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of the breach."); and Cook v. Brown, 428 So.2d 59, 62 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982) ("We readily agree that the measure of damages for the breach of a land sale contract is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of the breach."). Here, the sales contract between the Murphys and Radetic provides that the proposed sale was due to close within 30 days of April 8, 2006; therefore, the last possible closing date available to Radetic was May 8, 2006.

  4. Torsch v. McLeod

    665 So. 2d 934 (Ala. 1995)   Cited 13 times
    Indicating that it is "well established that damages may not be awarded where they are remote or speculative"

    "This Court has held that 'the general rule is that compensatory damages are intended only to reimburse one for the loss suffered by reason of an injury to a person or property.' Sessions Co. v. Turner, 493 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Ala. 1986). It is equally well established that damages may not be awarded where they are remote or speculative. E.g., Cook v. Brown, 428 So.2d 59 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982)."

  5. United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Wade

    544 So. 2d 906 (Ala. 1989)   Cited 27 times
    Affirming a judgment based on a verdict for the insureds on a bad faith counterclaim and noting that the insureds' purchases over the year preceding the fire were twice their available income, but that there was no evidence of outstanding mortgages on the house, large outstanding debts, or checks returned for insufficient funds

    Sessions Co. v. Turner, 493 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Ala. 1986). It is equally well established that damages may not be awarded where they are remote or speculative. E.g., Cook v. Brown, 428 So.2d 59 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). USAA argues that because the Wades did not pay Carmichael, the debt was not incurred. The evidence shows, however, that the Wades agreed to pay the rent when they received the proceeds of the policy.

  6. Brett v. Wall

    530 So. 2d 797 (Ala. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the non-breaching party was not entitled to damages when there was no evidence of the fair market value of the property on the date of breach presented

    Of course, the measure of damages for the breach of a contract for the sale of land is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of the breach. Cook v. Brown, 428 So.2d 59 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982), citing Howison v. Oakley, 118 Ala. 215, 23 So. 810 (1898). While the plaintiffs do not argue with this proposition of law, their position is that the breach here continued to the date of the trial, and thus that their evidence of the market value of the lot as of the date of trial satisfied their burden of proof on that issue.

  7. Ford v. Canton

    530 So. 2d 217 (Ala. 1988)   Cited 6 times

    It is also well established that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract for the sale of land is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of the breach. Brett v. Wall, 530 So.2d 797 (Ala. 1988); Cook v. Brown, 428 So.2d 59 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982), citing Howison v. Oakley, 118 Ala. 215, 23 So. 810 (1898). There is no evidence whatsoever in the record establishing the market value of the property at the time of the breach.

  8. Woodham v. Singletary

    545 So. 2d 78 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that "the trial court erred in awarding damages based on evidence of the property’s value after the breach" when the evidence consisted of a completed sale of the property three months after the breach

    The measure of damages for the breach of a contract involving the sale of land is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of the breach. Brett v. Wall, 530 So.2d 797 (Ala. 1988); Cook v. Brown, 428 So.2d 59 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). Because the Singletarys did not present any evidence of the reasonable market value of their property at the time the sales contract was breached, we find that there was a failure of proof on the element of damages essential to the Singletarys' recovery. Brett v. Wall, supra.