31 A. 434 | R.I. | 1895
An examination of the evidence in this case fails to satisfy us that the verdict of the jury is not sustained thereby. Indeed there is but very little conflict therein as to the terms of the contract *46 upon which the action is based, or as to the subsequent conduct of the parties thereunder.
We do not think the rulings complained of were erroneous. It was clearly competent for the plaintiff to offer evidence as to the profits he had realized from week to week during the time he had carried on the business at the store which he had purchased by bargain, of which business and store the defendant by violating his contract had deprived him, for the purpose of showing the amount of damages which he had sustained. The evidence was admitted not to show purely future, and hence conjectural or speculative profits, but to show the actual value of the business lost by the plaintiff by reason of the breach of the contract of sale by the defendant. And it is well settled that in assessing the damages caused by the interruption or destruction of an established business, proof showing the amount of such business and the profits realized therefrom prior to the interruption or stoppage thereof is admissible. For, as said by the court in Montgomery, etc., Agricultural Society v.Harwood,
The cases relied on by the defendant's counsel in support of his objection to the admission of said evidence, viz.,Braunsdorf v. Fellner, 76 Wisc. 1; Taylor Mfg. Co. v.Hatcher, 3, L.R.A. 587; Howard v. Stillwell Bierce Mfg.Co.,
In the case at bar it is clear that quite a large part of the damages sustained by the plaintiff consisted in the destruction of his business and the consequent loss thereby of his income *48 from the profits thereof, and hence was such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as naturally arising from the breach of the defendant's contract; and unless he is allowed to recover therefor, he will be denied that full and fair compensation to which the law entitles him. For the law says that everyone who breaks a contract shall pay for the natural consequences arising from the breach thereof, which must include gains prevented as well as losses sustained, provided they are reasonably certain and such as might naturally be expected to follow the breach.
The evidence offered by the defendant as to his prior experience with the plaintiff in another and entirely distinct business venture, was properly ruled out, as it manifestly could have no bearing on the questions at issue in this case.
The defendant takes the point that the damages awarded by the jury ($600) are excessive. We are not satisfied that this is so. The proof shows that the gross receipts of the store were from $7 to $11 per day when the plaintiff purchased it as aforesaid, and that the same had increased under his management, to from $75 to $120 a week when he left it, the average profits for the whole time being at least $20 a week. There is evidence also that the plaintiff had paid $405, on account of the agreed price of the store and business including the license, which sum the defendant refused to repay when he turned the plaintiff out of said store. And we cannot say that $600 is an excessive amount for the breach of a contract which resulted in the total destruction of a business that yielded this income, together with the loss of said sum of $405, advanced as aforesaid.
Petition for a new trial denied and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment on the verdict.