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

Question

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?

Answer 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."