Home Table of Contents

WPI 303.05 Contract—Reliance Damages

6A WAPRAC WPI 303.05Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 303.05 (7th ed.)

Washington Practice Series TM

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

April 2022 Update

Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions

Part XIII. Contracts

Chapter 303. Contracts—Remedies

WPI 303.05 Contract—Reliance Damages

[If you find(insert appropriate predicate, if reliance damages are an alternative option for jury), then] the plaintiff has the right to recover damages which would place the plaintiff in the same position as if the contract had never been entered into.

You are to calculate the reasonable expenditures made by [the plaintiff] in reliance on [the defendant's] [promise] [conduct], subtracting the value of any benefits that [the plaintiff] obtained as a result of those expenditures, and also subtracting the amount of any loss that [the defendant] proves [the plaintiff] would have sustained had the contract been performed.

NOTE ON USE

Use this instruction when a contract is based upon promissory estoppel, or in other instances when the jury may award reliance damages. When reliance damages are presented as an alternative to expectation damages, insert an appropriate predicate, describing the circumstances under which the jury is to award reliance damages, so that the jury understands that it is not to award both.

Substitute the appropriate party designations for the party terms in brackets, or insert the parties' names. Use either “promise” or “conduct,” depending upon the circumstances of the case.

COMMENT

This instruction may be appropriate when the contract that is breached is based upon promissory estoppel. See RCM Supply Co., Inc. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc., 686 F.2d 1074, 1078–79 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Silverdale Hotel Assocs. v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 36 Wn.App. 762, 677 P.2d 773 (1984).

Reliance damages may also be appropriate when lost profits cannot be proved with reasonable certainty or do not exist. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 346 (1981); Farm Crop Energy, Inc. v. Old Nat'l Bank of Wash., 109 Wn.2d 923, 750 P.2d 231 (1988) (plaintiff limited to reliance damages on basis of “new business rule”).

As an alternative to the measure of damages stated in § 347 [benefit of bargain], the injured party has a right to damages based on his reliance interest, including expenditures made in preparation for performance, less any loss that the party in breach can prove with reasonable certainty the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 349 (1981).

For a detailed discussion of damages issues, see DeWolf, Allen, & Caruso, 25 Washington Practice, Contract Law and Practice ch. 14 (3d ed.).

[Current as of April 2021.]

End of Document