B-Law essay
In the contemporary business environment, contracts play the crucial part and the business law helps to keep parties respectful to contracts and their duties. At this point, the case of Craig’s Crocodile Inc. reveals the possible breach of contract committed by the company in relation to Pauly Property Management Services. The breach of contract enacted the duty of Craig’s company to mitigate damages to Pauly Property Management Services. However, in the course of the legal dispute, it is also important to decide which damages, compensatory or punitive, Craig’s company has to provide for the harmed party.
The duty to mitigate damages is the duty of the party, which has wronged to make reasonable efforts to limit the resulting harm to the party that has suffered damages. In case of Craig’s Crocodile Inc. has the duty to mitigate damages to Pauly Property Management Services for breaching the contract concerning the lease of the facilities from Pauly Property Management Services. In fact, the duty to mitigate damages has emerged since the moment, when Craig’s Crocodile Inc. has decided to change the facilities and to refuse from the facilities leased by Pauly Property Management Services before the end of the term of the contract. In this part of the contract, Craig’s company has breached the contract and the breach of contract enacted the duty to mitigate damages to the party, which has suffered harms caused by the breach of the contract by Craig’s company.
The punitive damages are damages that are supposed not only to compensate losses to the party, who has suffered the damages, but also and mainly to punish the party that has caused the damages. In case of Craig’s Crocodile Inc., Pauly Property Management Services insists on the punitive damages, although such a position of the company is exaggerated since punitive damages would not be reasonable efforts in terms of the duty of Craig’s Crocodile Inc. to mitigate damages to Pauly Property Management Services. In fact, Craig’s company did not cause such severe damages to Pauly Property Management Services that the latter could require the punitive damages.
Instead, the company could insist on demanding the compensatory damages from Craig’s Crocodile Inc. because the latter has breached the contract and did not use the facilities leased from Pauly Property Management Services for the full term of the contract. In such a way, Craig should just compensate damages, which include the financial losses of the property owner for the rest of the term, which Craig’s company refused to use the facilities of Pauly Property Management Services. In this regard, the compensatory damages would be more reasonable to require from Craig’s company for the breach of contract because such compensations would be reasonable efforts from the part of Craig’s Crocodile Inc. to compensate harm to Pauly Property Management Services.
In fact, the compensatory damages are those damages that are supposed to compensate losses and harms caused to the party that has suffered from the breach of contract or negligence. In this regard, the compensatory damages are the reasonable solution to the dispute between Craig’s Crocodile Inc. and Pauly Property Management Services.
Thus, the case of Craig’s Crocodile Inc. reveals the fact that the company has breached the contract in relation to Pauly Property Management Services and has to provide the latter with the compensatory damages.
