context: The same fundamental problems noted above apply to the issue of damages. Indiana law requires a sufficient degree of certainty to support damage awards. The typical recovery for breach of contract is a party's expectation interest (i.e., the benefit of the bargain).
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 978 F.2d 996, 1001
citation_a.parenthetical: affh-ming summary judgment because "[ajppellant presented nothing outside the pleadings that allowed any inference of damage"
citation_a.sentence: Consultants, Inc. v. Barnes, 978 F.2d 996, 1001 (7th Cir.1992) (affh-ming summary judgment because “[ajppellant presented nothing outside the pleadings that allowed any inference of damage”); see also Mid-America Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading Co., Ltd., 100 F.3d 1353, 1363 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that where a party could not prove its lost profits with reasonable certainty, summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 100 F.3d 1353, 1363
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that where a party could not prove its lost profits with reasonable certainty, summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate
citation_b.sentence: Consultants, Inc. v. Barnes, 978 F.2d 996, 1001 (7th Cir.1992) (affh-ming summary judgment because “[ajppellant presented nothing outside the pleadings that allowed any inference of damage”); see also Mid-America Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading Co., Ltd., 100 F.3d 1353, 1363 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that where a party could not prove its lost profits with reasonable certainty, summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate).