This lack of evidence does not allow the Court to determine the reasonableness of Plaintiffs' claimed damages request. See also Dill v. Dill, No. K15L-02-003 JJC, 2016 WL 4127455, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) ("To determine the amount of an award as to damages, the Court must first determine the date of default, or breach, because the timing of the breach is an issue that 'has implications for valuation and any potential interest accrual.'"). Under the scant facts provided here, the Court cannot determine the remaining principal sum that is due under the Promissory Note. Compensation for breach of contract usually is limited to that amount that "will place [plaintiff] in the same position that he would have been in if the contract had been performed.

But a failure to "connect[] the dots between the harms" suffered and "the causes of action" proves fatal to a plaintiff seeking a damages judgment.See Dill v. Dill, 2016 WL 4127455, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 2, 2016). Sullivan v. Watson, 2023 WL 3487773, at *2 (Del. Super. May 16, 2023) (ORDER) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted).

Campbell , 2007 WL 1765558, at *1 n.6 (citing Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 55(b)(2) ).Id at n.7.; see also Dill v. Dill , 2016 WL 4127455, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 2, 2016) ("After a default judgment is ordered, an inquisition hearing is held to determine the amount of damages due. At an inquisition hearing, the Court's findings on damages must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.

Dry Tech, for its part, quotes the Superior Court case Dill v. Dill for the proposition that "[a]fter a default judgment is ordered, an inquisition hearing is held to determine the amount of damages due." Dill v. Dill, 2016 WL 4127455, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 2, 2016) (citing Patton v. Yancey, 2014 WL 4674600, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 22, 2014)).

"[T]he plaintiff may recover any incidental or consequential losses that arose as a result of the breach."Mayhorn v. Talley-Siders, 2017 WL 4122580, at *5 (Del. Com. Pl. September 5, 2017) citing to Dill v. Dill, 2016 WL 4127455, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 2, 2016). Id. citing to Devincentis v. European Performance, Inc., 2012 WL 1646347, at *3 (Del. Super. Apr. 17, 3012).

See Duncan v. Theratx, Inc., 775 A.2d 1019, 1022 (Del. 2001). Dill v. Dill, 2016 WL 4127455, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 2, 2016) (footnote omitted). "Additionally, the plaintiff may recover any incidental or consequential losses that arose as a result of the breach."

See id. Dill v. Dill, 2016 WL 4127455, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 2, 2016) (footnote omitted). Plaintiff requests $23,262 in damages, which represents her $13,082 deposit to Defendant for his original work, $493 she paid to Defendant to install piers that she claimed he did not install, $7,187 she paid to Precision Cuts to repair her backyard patio, and $2,500 she claimed she paid to repair her front yard and front walkway after Defendant ceased communication and work on the project.

See Mehta v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., 2014 WL 5438534, at *6 (Del. Ch. Oct. 20, 2014). Dill v. Dill, 2016 WL 4127455, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 2, 2016) (internal citations omitted). It is the duty of the Court to reconcile discrepancies in the evidence.