Topic: Remedies for Breach: Limitations on Damages: Avoidability
Heading
Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co., US Cir. Court of appeals, 4th Cir,1929
Background Facts/Procedural History
 A contract was entered into b/w Luten Bridge Co and Rockingham Count, but there was
considerable public opposition to the bridge so the Board of County Commissioners told
the P not to proceed on Feb 21, 1924
o At that time P had expended about $1900 for labor and material
o Despite the notice by the county, the P continued to build the bridge under the
contract
 The present action is brought to recover $18,000 for work done before Nov. 3 1924
Issue(s)

Substantive Rule/Governing Legal Standard

Application/Reasoning
 Court doesn’t believe P should have proceeded with construction after it was notified by
the county
o Although the county had no right to rescind the contract, and the notice
given to P was a breach on its part, it was P’s duty to not further increase the
amount of damages by proceeding to build
 The injured party’s remedy is to treat the contract as broken when they
receive the notice, and sue for recovery of such damages as they may have
sustained
 Here, the bridge was of no value to the county, and when it notified
the P that it wouldn’t proceed with the contract, it was P’s duty to
stop work
 P had no right to “pile up” damages by proceeding to build a
“useless bridge”
Holding/Conclusion
 Judgement reversed
Comments/Questions/Notes