In the case of DeRosier v. Utitlity System of America, the plantiff DeRosier sued Utility system of America (USA) for breach of contract. DeRosier made a verbal agreement with USA foreman to dump fill material on his property. USA agreed that DeRosier must obtain the proper permits first. USA agreed to this because this allowed them to dump the mineral close by rather than haul it somewhere else. DeRosier obtain a permit to dump 1,500 cubic yard onto his property and gave a copy of the permit to aUSA. However, USA dumped 6,500 cubic yard of mineral. DeRosier was unable to start construction on his home until the mineral was removed. DeRosier sent a letter threatening to sue if USA 9,500. DeRosier sued USA and went with another company to remove the mineral. The…show more content… The party who hasn’t breached has a right to USA wasn’t allowed by the court to mitigate down any resultant loss because of several reasons. First, the non-breacher has a right to sue. USA received proper notice of the problem. According to Court of Appeal of Minnesota (2010), DeRosier counsel repeated the complaints and demanded that USA remove the extra fill under threat of lawsuit. Instead of fixing the problem for free, USA offered to remove the fill for a price. If DeRosier would have accepted this offer, it would have entered them into another agreement without USA fixing the original problem. You can’t have a new contract to mitigate the old one. Since, USA breached their contract DeRosier is allowed under the UCC to rescind the contract and sue for damages. Secondly, under expectation interest it USA should compensate DeRosier and put him in a position that he would be in if they would have followed
