Will the trial judge grant the engineer’s motion for a directed verdict regarding damages in a breach of contract?

In the context of a trial involving a breach of contract, the concept of damages is critical. To successfully claim a breach of contract, a party must demonstrate that they suffered actual harm as a result of the breach, which typically manifests as monetary damages. If an engineer claims no damages, this suggests that there is no evidence to support any financial loss resulting from the breach, which is necessary for a claim of damages to proceed.

However, the assertion that contracts are intrinsically valuable mischaracterizes the nature of contract law. Contracts create legal obligations, and a breach of such obligations requires the plaintiff to show that they incurred losses due to the failure of the other party to fulfill the contract's terms. Although the theory of intrinsic value suggests that contracts alone have merit based on their existence, the legal framework requires the demonstration of specific losses to justify an award for damages.

In this case, if the engineer did not claim damages, the motion for a directed verdict regarding damages should not be granted based solely on the intrinsic value of contracts; rather, it should be understood that establishing monetary damages is a fundamental principle that must be fulfilled in order to warrant relief in the form of damages. Therefore, the reasoning behind this choice hinges on the necessity of corroborating monetary damages