Groves v. John Wunder Co. 205 Minn. 163, 286 N.W. 235 (Minn. 1939) Groves owned some rocky land that wasn't suitable for very much. He signed a contract with a gravel company named Wunder to lease the land (for $105k), remove gravel, and regrade the land so it was flat and level (and then useable for houses or farming). Wunder paid money and took the gravel, but did not level the land. Groves sued for breach of contract. Wunder breached the contract on purpose because they calculated it was too expensive to level the land. The land, if improved would be worth only $12k more than was before the contract, while it would cost $60k to level the land. The Trial Court found for Groves and awarded $12k. Groves appealed. That's the expectation damages standard. Also known as benefit of the bargain. The Appellate Court reversed the damage award and said that since it would cost $60k to level the land, Wunder had to pay $60k. The Appellate Court found that the standard should be cost of completion. The Court found that the fact that leveling the land is not cost effective is irrelevant. The Court noted that the fact it was a willful breach is important (although the trial judge did not find that to be the case). There was a strong dissent. The dissent argued that the difference in value should be awarded, not the cost of completion. The dissent argued that Groves would become enriched beyond the contract if they were awarded $60k. Compare this case to Peevyhouse v. Garland which agreed with the dissent's reasoning. In this case, Groves wanted money (aka monetary damages). However, a plaintiff could instead seek specific performance which means that they don't want the money, they want them to do the work. Groves never leveled the land, even though he won the big $$$. Probably because it would be a waste of his $60k to level land that would only produce $12k in return. Groves wasn't dumb. Both the majority and the dissent in this case applied the benefit of the bargain concept, but applied it differently. Should courts award cost to completion, or difference in value? In most cases, they are the same. There is no 'black letter' answer. Courts tend to consider 3 major factors: Amount of the disproportion. The less the disproportion, the more willing they are to award cost to completion. The extent to which the contract is subjective and personal vs. commercial. If the person cares about the completion, as opposed to a business deal, they are more likely to award cost to completion. The willfulness of the breach. The more willful the breach, the more likely to award cost to completion.