Massachusetts
How Cohen v. New York City applies in Massachusetts: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Contracts.
Massachusetts recognizes that damage awards must reliably reflect actual losses, and parties to a contract can only recover for losses that were foreseeable and within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made, consistent with the principles in Cohen v. New York City.
In Massachusetts, the expectation damages rule prevails, allowing recovery for losses that arise naturally from the breach or were contemplated by both parties, drawing from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 344.
The court held that a builder could recover the contract price minus the cost of completion, emphasizing that expectation damages must reflect the value to the party as intended by the contract.
The court ruled that damages for economic loss due to breach must be non-consequential and foreseeable at the contract's inception, aligning with the expectations reflected in Cohen.
The court affirmed that damages for a breach of a contract are limited to those that accurately reflect the losses expected from non-performance, reflecting the principle outlined in Cohen.
Massachusetts law aligns with the federal standard under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), emphasizing the foreseeability and impotence of non-consequential damages. However, Massachusetts places more weight on the contemplation of parties than some other jurisdictions adhering strictly to UCC provisions.
Massachusetts bar exam candidates should understand the application of expectation damages, particularly regarding foreseeability and the contemplation of parties in contracts, as influenced by Cohen v. New York City.