Mitigation of Damages. Ms. Vuylsteke, a single mother with three ...

[abc]

Mitigation of Damages. Ms. Vuylsteke, a single mother with three children, lived in Portland, Oregon. Cynthia Broan also lived in Oregon until she moved to New York City to open and operate an art gallery. Broan contacted Vuylsteke and invited her to manage the gallery under a one-year contract for an annual salary of 72,000. To begin work, Vuylsteke relocated to New York. As part of the move, Vuylsteke transferred custody of her children to her husband, who lived in London, England. In accepting the job, Vuylsteke also forfeited her husband's alimony and child-support payments, including unpaid amounts of nearly 30,000. Before Vuylsteke started work, Broan repudiated the contract. Unable to find employment for more than an annual salary of 25,000, Vuylsteke moved to London to be near her children. Vuylsteke filed a suit in an Oregon state court against Broan, seeking damages for breach of contract. Should the court hold, as Broan argued, that Vuylsteke did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages? Why or why not?

Question 2

Because of the duty to inform, an agent must:
 a. be able to show where money or property comes from and goes to b. keep her principal informed of all facts relevant to the agency
  c. engage in acts that could lead to personal liability
  d. perform responsibilities with the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances
  e. record all transactions related to the agency

[234sdffa]

Answer to Question 1

Mitigation of damages
The court awarded Vuylsteke 74,012 (72,000 for the annual salary and 2,012 for shipping costs to move to London). Broan appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the award. As to Broan's argument that Vuylsteke had not taken reasonable measures to mitigate her damages, the court that stated that the question of whether a plaintiff properly mitigated damages is a question of fact. . . . Here, there is evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings. The appellate court repeated the lower court's conclusion that under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable . . . to choose . . . to move to London. The appellate court reiterated the lower court's findings that Vuylsteke made reasonable efforts to mitigate and was unable to find employment and that it was reasonable not obtaining employment of 25,000 in the United States.

Answer to Question 2

b