That rule requires that to be recoverable, lost profits must be (1) " ‘the natural and proximate, or direct, result of the breach complained of’ " and (2) either they must be " ‘capable of ascertainment with reasonable, or sufficient, certainty,’ " or there must be " ‘some basis on which a reasonable estimate of the amount of the profit can be made.’ " Id. at 376-77 (quoting Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc. , 279 Ala. 148, 182 So. 2d 880, 881 (1966) ). "[A]bsolute certainty is not called for or required." Id. at 377 (quoting Paris , 182 So. 2d at 881 ).
In order that it may be a recoverable element of damages, the loss of profits must be the natural and proximate, or direct, result of the breach complained of and they must also be capable of ascertainment with reasonable, or sufficient, certainty, or there must be some basis on which a reasonable estimate of the amount of the profit can be made; absolute certainty is not called for or required.Id. (quoting Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc., 182 So.2d 880, 881 (1966)). This rule is called the rule of "reasonable certainty."
The only evidence of damages Byrd presented at trial related to lost profits. In Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc., 279 Ala. 148, 182 So.2d 880 (1966), this Court stated the general rule regarding recovery of lost profits as an element of damages: "[T]he loss of profits must be the natural and proximate, or direct result of the breach complained of and they must also be capable of ascertainment with reasonable, or sufficient, certainty, or there must be some basis on which a reasonable estimate of the amount of the profit can be made; absolute certainty is not called for or required."
The amount of damages was in dispute, but Epps claimed damages, and had evidence to support the claim, in an amount not $1000 more than the award given by the jury. The rule for determining lost profits was set forth by this court in Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc., 279 Ala. 148, 149, 182 So.2d 880 (1966): " 'In order that it may be a recoverable element of damages, the loss of profits must be the natural and proximate, or direct, result of the breach complained of and they must also be capable of ascertainment with reasonable, or sufficient, certainty, or there must be some basis on which a reasonable estimate of the amount of the profit can be made; absolute certainty is not called for or required.
Med-Plus makes several arguments to demonstrate that the trial court reversibly erred in admitting the CCG's estimate of the cost of completion to prove lost profits. Citing Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc., 279 Ala. 148, 182 So.2d 880 (1966), and Brendle Fire Equipment, Inc. v. Electronic Engineers, Inc., 454 So.2d 1032 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), Med-Plus contends first that, as evidence to prove lost profits, the estimate of completion costs should not have been admitted because, Med-Plus says, the estimate was speculative and uncertain. Med-Plus argues that the estimate was based partly on builder's plans for the clinic, which, it says, did not include specifications for the "interior finishes," such as wallpaper, floor covering, etc. Such information, argues Med-Plus, could not have been known when the contract was terminated.
Lost profits are recoverable where it reasonably appears that they would have been made if the contract had been performed and where it appears that their loss necessarily followed the breach. Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc., 279 Ala. 148, 182 So.2d 880 (1966). In determining the value of a lease, evidence of probable lost profits, although not necessarily accepted as a basis for recovery of lost profits, may be admissible as evidence from which a jury may draw a conclusion as to the value of a lease.
We agree. In Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc., 279 Ala. 148, 182 So.2d 880 (1966), cited in Brendle Fire Equipment, supra, the Court quoted from and followed the case of Brigham Co. v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 243 (1884). In Brigham, the Court held the following:
"Lost profits are recoverable where it reasonably appears that they would have been made if the contract had been performed and where it appears that their loss necessarily followed the breach. Paris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc., 279 Ala. 148, 182 So.2d 880 (1966). . . . In Alabama, anticipated profits of an unestablished business may be recovered if such damages are proved with `reasonable certainty.' Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson, 506 So.2d 317 (Ala. 1987); Morgan v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 466 So.2d 107 (Ala. 1985).
1958), Title 7-A, Section 2-204, Subsection 3. Speculative profits with respect to which no means exist to ascertain results with reasonable certainty cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract. Dickerson v. Finley, 158 Ala. 149, 48 So. 548; Lide v. Birmingham Elect. Battery Co., 22 Ala. App. 336, 115 So. 689; Taylor v. Shoemaker, 34 Ala. App. 168, 38 So.2d 895; Harris v. Buckner Feed Mill, Inc., 279 Ala. 148, 182 So.2d 880. Tucker Brogden, Atmore, for appellee.
Speculative and uncertain profits are not recoverable as damages for breach of contract; and where plaintiff incurs expenses in performance of the contract, but is prevented from performing the contract, the expenses would be a proper element of damages. Paris v. Buckner Feed Mills, Inc., 279 Ala. 880, 182 So.2d 880; Hardaway-Wright Co. v. Bradley Bros., 163 Ala. 596, 51 So. 21. There may be an Amendment by not only correcting mistake in name of one plaintiff, but also striking one of plaintiffs. Springer v. Sullivan, 218 Ala. 645, 119 So. 851. WRIGHT, Judge.