Brief Fact Summary. Employee terminated her employment contract forcing her employer to hire a replacement at a higher salary.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The non-breaching party is entitled to full compensation for the loss of the benefit of the bargain.
Issue. Is an employer entitled to damages resulting from breach of an employment contract?
Held. Yes. Judgment reversed. The Defendant did breach her employment contract and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to have the benefit of its bargain restored.
Dissent. The dissent disagrees with the court when it found that the Defendant breached her employment contract. Instead, the dissent argues that she legitimately terminated her employment contract due to health reasons.
Discussion. The court reasoned that damages resulting from breach of contract are measured by the expectations of the parties. The court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff was not damaged by her breach because it gained a more experienced teacher. The court found that the Plaintiff’s expectations were not to hire a more experienced teacher. Instead it expected to receive the services specified in the Defendant’s contract for the salary specified in the Defendant’s contract. The court also reasoned that although Plaintiff had a duty to mitigate damages, since only one qualified applicant applied for the position, Plaintiff had done all it could to mitigate.