Van-Rob states that ENA can "cover" by paying the increased price and pursuing "adequate compensatory or other correct relief . . . at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation." Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (quoting Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Commission, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958)); see also e.g., Cellnet Communications, Inc. v. New Par, 291 F. Supp.2d 565, 570 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ("[t]he classic remedy for breach of contract is an action at law for damages. If the injury complained of may be compensated by an award of monetary damages, then an adequate remedy at law exists and no irreparable harm may be found as a matter of law") (quoting Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel,L.L.C., 966 F. Supp. 540, 541 (E.D. Mich. 1997)); Paw Paw Wine Distributors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram Sons, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 398, 401 (W.D. Mich. 1985) (finding that although obtaining wine from another distributor was more expensive, plaintiff did not suffer irreparable harm and money damages were adequate). Van-Rob asserts that ENA's "adequate compensatory or other complete relief" is suing Van-Rob for the difference between the alleged contract price and Van-Rob's price. Van-Rob asserts that this course of action will allow ENA to preserve its business relationship with Chrysler, prevent its production from being interrupted, save its reputation, and maintain its right to pursue damages from Van-Rob.