Caseflicks

New York Court of Appeals • 1974

Freund v. Washington Square Press, Inc.

34 N.Y.2d 379 | 314 N.E.2d 419 | 357 N.Y.S.2d 857 | 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1496

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that contract damages measure the plaintiff's provable loss—not the breaching party's cost of performance—and speculative lost profits support only nominal damages.

Background

In 1965, author Freund granted Washington Square Press exclusive rights to publish and sell his manuscript on modern drama. The publisher agreed to pay a $2,000 nonreturnable advance upon delivery, with the option to reject the manuscript as unsuitable within 60 days. If it did not terminate, it had to publish a hardbound edition within 18 months and later issue a paperback edition. Freund was also entitled to royalties based on book sales. If the publisher failed to publish on time, the agreement terminated, rights reverted to Freund, and he retained all payments already received without losing other remedies.

Freund delivered the manuscript and received the $2,000 advance. The publisher neither exercised its 60-day termination right nor published the work. After merging with another company and ceasing hardcover publishing, it refused to publish the manuscript in any form. Freund initially sought specific performance, but the trial court denied that remedy, found a valid contract and breach, and ordered the manuscript returned to him.

At the damages trial, Freund sought compensation for a delayed academic promotion, lost royalties, and the cost of arranging publication himself. The trial court rejected the promotion and royalty claims but awarded $10,000 as the estimated cost of hardcover publication. The Appellate Division affirmed by a divided vote, treating publication costs as analogous to the cost of completing defective or unfinished construction. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment, reducing the award to six cents in nominal damages.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether an author whose publisher breaches a promise to publish may recover the cost of independently publishing the manuscript.

Holding

No. The cost of publication was not a proper measure of Freund's contract damages.

Reasoning

Contract damages are compensatory: they aim, so far as money can, to place the injured party in the position full performance would have given him. Recovery is limited to foreseeable losses that can be proved with reasonable certainty, and it may not give the plaintiff more than performance would have provided.

The promised performance did not entitle Freund to receive a printed and bound book, or to receive funds sufficient to produce one himself. His contractual benefit from publication was the prospect of royalties from the publisher's sales, along with the advance that he had already received. Awarding the publisher's estimated cost of printing and binding would therefore give Freund a benefit beyond his bargain rather than compensate his actual loss.

The lower courts incorrectly measured damages by the cost the publisher saved through its breach. Damages depend on the natural and probable consequences to the injured plaintiff, not on the defaulting party's avoided expense. Here, the relevant consequence of nonpublication was the loss of anticipated royalties, not the publisher's expense of putting the book into print.

The construction-contract analogy did not fit. A construction owner ordinarily bargains for a completed building itself, so completion cost may reflect the value of the promised performance. Freund, by contrast, bargained for royalties generated by the publisher's sale of books. The result might differ if he had contracted to receive a specified quantity of printed and bound copies to sell or use as he chose.

Issue #2

Whether Freund proved compensatory damages for lost royalties with sufficient certainty.

Holding

No. Because the anticipated royalties were speculative and unsupported by a reliable evidentiary basis, they could not be awarded.

Reasoning

Freund's expectation interest consisted principally of the $2,000 advance and royalties from future sales. His interest in the advance was fully satisfied because he had received and retained it under the contract.

Lost royalties were theoretically recoverable, but Freund supplied no stable foundation for estimating what sales or royalties the book would have generated. Without sufficiently certain proof of the profits prevented by the breach, an award for royalties would rest on speculation.

Freund also alleged no foreseeable and ascertainable reliance losses incurred in performing or preparing to perform the agreement. His restitution interest was protected when the court ordered return of his manuscript. Because no compensatory loss was established with the required certainty, only nominal damages were available as a formal vindication of the breached legal right.