Legal Opinion · Dissent

Collins Entertainment Corp. v. Coats & Coats Rental Amusement

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 10, 2006No. 26136Published

1DissentChief Justice Toal

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the “lost volume seller” doctrine should not be adopted and applied in this case. Moreover, in my view, the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s calculation of damages. Therefore, I would reverse and remand.

The lost volume seller doctrine is a measure of damages applied in cases involving breach-of-contract claims. See, e.g., Gianetti v. Norwalk Hosp., 266 Conn. 544, 833 A.2d 891 (2003); Jetz Serv. Co., Inc. v. Salina Properties, 19 Kan.App.2d 144, 865 P.2d 1051 (1993).

The present case, however, involves an allegation of tortious…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1985
  2. Ross v. HoltonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Camp v. Springs Mortgage Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  4. Gianetti v. Norwalk HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  5. Unique Designs, Inc. v. Pittard MacHinery Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1991

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API