CAS Bar Remedies — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to halt Defendant's construction of a building that would permanently block Plaintiff's only source of natural light. Which element is NOT required for a court to grant the preliminary injunction?
- A likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits
- A showing that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction
- That the balance of hardships tips in Plaintiff's favor
- A guarantee that Plaintiff will prevail at the final trial on the merits (Correct answer)
Correct answer: A guarantee that Plaintiff will prevail at the final trial on the merits
A preliminary injunction requires (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm if denied, (3) balance of hardships favoring the moving party, and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved. A guarantee of ultimate victory is never required — courts issue preliminary injunctions precisely to preserve the status quo during litigation when the outcome is uncertain.
Question 2: Defendant breached a contract with Plaintiff, causing $20,000 in foreseeable damages. Plaintiff, however, failed to take any steps to find a substitute supplier, which would have reduced losses by $8,000. Plaintiff may recover:
- $20,000 — the full amount of damages actually suffered
- $12,000 — the damages that could not have been avoided with reasonable efforts (Correct answer)
- $8,000 — only the portion Plaintiff failed to mitigate
- $0 — failure to mitigate bars any recovery
Correct answer: $12,000 — the damages that could not have been avoided with reasonable efforts
The mitigation doctrine (doctrine of avoidable consequences) requires an injured party to take reasonable steps to reduce damages. Plaintiff cannot recover for losses that could have been avoided with reasonable effort. The $8,000 in avoidable losses is subtracted, leaving $12,000 recoverable.
Question 3: Defendant converted Plaintiff's vintage guitar, which had a fair market value of $8,000. Defendant then sold the guitar to a collector for $22,000. If Plaintiff elects a restitutionary remedy rather than compensatory damages, Plaintiff may recover:
- $8,000 — the fair market value of the guitar at the time of conversion
- $14,000 — only Defendant's profit above the fair market value
- $22,000 — Defendant's full proceeds from the wrongful sale (Correct answer)
- $0 — restitution is unavailable for intentional torts
Correct answer: $22,000 — Defendant's full proceeds from the wrongful sale
Restitution is designed to prevent unjust enrichment — it strips the wrongdoer of the benefit gained from the wrong, not merely the plaintiff's loss. Because Defendant wrongfully sold Plaintiff's property for $22,000, Plaintiff can elect restitution to recover that full amount, even though it exceeds the guitar's fair market value.
Question 4: Plaintiff contracted to buy Defendant's one-of-a-kind antique map collection for $15,000. Defendant refused to sell. Which remedy is most appropriate?
- Compensatory damages equal to any difference between the contract price and the market value of comparable maps
- Specific performance ordering Defendant to transfer the collection (Correct answer)
- Punitive damages for Defendant's deliberate breach
- Nominal damages because Plaintiff suffered no proven monetary loss
Correct answer: Specific performance ordering Defendant to transfer the collection
Specific performance is available when the subject matter is unique and money damages would be an inadequate substitute. A one-of-a-kind antique collection cannot be replaced on the open market, making specific performance the appropriate equitable remedy.
Question 5: Under California Civil Code § 3294, punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant who:
- Was negligent in a manner that caused significant harm to the plaintiff
- Violated a safety statute, giving rise to negligence per se
- Acted with malice, oppression, or fraud (Correct answer)
- Caused emotional distress that was severe and verifiable
Correct answer: Acted with malice, oppression, or fraud
California Civil Code § 3294 expressly limits punitive damages to cases where the defendant acted with malice (intent to injure or conscious disregard of rights), oppression (subjecting plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship), or fraud (intentional misrepresentation). Mere negligence, statutory violations, or emotional distress alone do not qualify.
Question 6: Before Defendant's stated breach date, Plaintiff had already spent $5,000 in reliance on the contract. Plaintiff's expectation damages (lost profit) would have been only $2,000. Plaintiff sues for reliance damages. The court will most likely award:
- $5,000 — the full reliance expenditure, regardless of the contract's profit potential
- $7,000 — both the reliance expenditure and the expected profit
- $2,000 — only expectation damages, which control over reliance
- $5,000 in reliance damages, subject to a cap at the contract price or expectation interest (Correct answer)
Correct answer: $5,000 in reliance damages, subject to a cap at the contract price or expectation interest
A plaintiff may elect reliance damages as an alternative to expectation damages, but reliance recovery is capped at the contract price or expectation interest. Here, reliance ($5,000) exceeds expectation ($2,000), so the court limits recovery to protect the defendant from being put in a worse position than if the contract had been performed.
