Replies to post #79356 on RedHawk Holdings Corp (fka SNDD)

[kex0414]

6. Due to N95 Shield’s failure to fund the deposit, and therefore defaulting on the contract, Redhawk lost the opportunity to sell the masks and collect the $45 million owed to Redhawk under the terms of the agreement. Further, at the time of the arbitration hearing, Redhawk had incurred legal fees and expenses in its attempts to complete this transaction and allow N95 Shield, LLC to cure its default.

My first issue is with the phrase, ...lost the opportunity....
In my opinion if the product was to be delivered in one shipment, it would hold slightly more weight as an argument as to incurred damages. However, "Opportunity" denotes speculation. Courts frown upon speculative damages re. breach of contract.
At the time of the signing, there could not be a guarantee as to the necessity of the number of masks needed in the future.

Landmark decision by Federal Judge Posner claimed we have a duty to breach a contract that harms our economic system.
With respect to contract law, the economic-loss rule generally precludes recovery in tort for economic losses resulting from the
failure of a defendant to perform under its contract with a plaintiff. The phrase in Contract Law is, to make the Plaintiff whole. That doesn't include anticipated or speculative profits.

So...

It wouldn't surprise me that the defense for N95 will be that the Arbitrator overstepped his authority by attempting to rewrite the law, not arbitrate within the framework of the existing law. An alternate defense; "We didn't have the money for the initial deposit. So what! They didn't lose any money...they just didn't make any money, and that's not compensable".