Acca specimens paper Question help

If the answer were 1 (I assume you agree with option 1) and 4, that would mean that Az had spent $5 million and would receive nothing as a result of Bob's default Think about tis logically! If you and I are in contract and you breach the terms of that contract, and then option 4 applied (damages put the parties in the position they were in before the contract was formed) there's nothing in it for me! So whenever a contracting person wishes to opt out of a contract, they would be happy to know that they would suffer no costs because (according to you!) they would be put back into the positions we were in before the contract was formed Not really a sensible choice is it! OK?

" but he didn’t receive anything back because he already sold it elsewhere – why is that?" Because he's lost nothing However, in a case involving a Singer model of car, the breacher HAD to pay compensation because it was shown to the Court's satisfaction that the subsequent sale of the Singer was not effected until a further 6 months after the breach ... so costs HAD been incurred and the Court accepted that a sale had been lost As a remedy for breach? "So when would putting them back to the position they were in before the contract was formed, be a sensible choice as a remedy for damages?" This concept of restoring parties to their original pre-contractual positions is called rescission and would be available, for example, where a person has been misled by some other party making misrepresentations upon which the innocent party had relied OK?