Also known as: essential reliances · reliance interest
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of reliance damages consisting of expenditures that a promisee must incur to enable performance of contractual obligations. These costs place the injured party in the position it would have occupied had the contract never been made. Recovery remains subject to reduction by any loss the breaching party proves with reasonable certainty would have occurred even if the contract had been performed.
Emily Ellis contracted with Enigma Technologies to install a large rooftop sign on her building. Ellis spent funds reinforcing the structure so it could support the sign. When Enigma failed to obtain the required city approval, Ellis sued for breach. The court awarded her the reinforcement costs as essential reliance because those expenditures were required to enable performance of the promised installation.
Emanuel Escobar's company contracted with Elemental Pharmaceuticals to provide specialized imaging services at a new clinic site. Escobar purchased imaging equipment and renovated space in reliance on the agreement. After Elemental backed out, Escobar recovered the equipment and renovation costs as reliance damages. Elemental proved no net loss would have occurred, so the award was not reduced.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Elena Estrada's production company contracted with Elite Dynamics to develop and film pilot episodes for a news series. Estrada hired journalists, rented studio space, and completed three pilots before Elite cancelled. Estrada recovered the salary, rent, and production expenditures as essential reliance because those outlays were required to perform the development obligations.
Essential reliance covers costs required to enable performance of the contract itself. Incidental reliance covers costs incurred merely to obtain the benefit of the other party's performance. The distinction can affect recoverability under different damages rules.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under the rule permitting reliance damages as an alternative to expectation damages, the breaching party may prove with reasonable certainty any loss the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed, and the award is reduced by that amount.
Supporting sources
Actual outlays made in preparation for performance are concrete expenditures that can be documented with receipts and records. Lost profits require proof of hypothetical future gains that courts traditionally demand be shown with greater certainty.
Supporting sources
No. Restitution or reliance recovery remains available even if the contract is unenforceable under the statute of frauds, provided restitution does not frustrate the statute's purpose. The expenditures represent loss caused by reliance rather than enforcement of the oral agreement.
Supporting sources
…his failure to warn claim. Liggett's appeal on the express warranty claim presents an abstruse question about the nature of the reliance interest required by U.C.C. section 2-313, N.J.S.A. § 12A:2-313. The attention we pay to this issue on appeal is somewhat ironic, given that the extensive trial focused on other theories of…