## Facts

- Chicago Coliseum Club (a boxing promoter) contracted with heavyweight contender Harry Wills to fight champion Jack Dempsey in a championship bout planned for September 1926.
- The Club and Dempsey executed a written agreement (dated March 6, 1926; executed March 13) under which the Club would promote the Dempsey–Wills bout and pay Dempsey staged sums totaling $800,000 before the contest, plus a share of net profits above a stated threshold and a share of motion picture revenues.
- Dempsey promised not to engage in other matches before the scheduled contest date and to submit to life and health insurance for the Club’s benefit.
- After contracting, the Club incurred preparation expenses, including a $10 payment to Dempsey and an architect’s fee to develop stadium plans, and began logistical preparations.
- When notified that insurance examiners would conduct a required physical, Dempsey responded by telegram that he was too busy training for another match, denied any contract existed, and told the Club to stop “kidding” itself.
- The Club sought (and obtained) an Indiana injunction restraining Dempsey from participating in other boxing matches, and separately sued in Illinois for damages, including lost profits and various expenses.
- The trial court effectively denied recovery; the Club appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Dempsey’s telegram and conduct constituted an unequivocal repudiation of a valid contract.
2. If there was a breach, whether the Club could recover:
   1. Expected profits from the cancelled bout.
   2. Expenditures incurred before the Dempsey contract was executed.
   3. Expenses of obtaining an injunction and attempting to compel performance after repudiation.
   4. Post-contract, pre-breach expenditures reasonably incurred to prepare for performance.

## Decision

- The appellate court held Dempsey’s telegram was an unequivocal repudiation of a valid contract, entitling the Club to at least nominal damages.
- The court affirmed the exclusion of claimed lost profits as too speculative to be proved with reasonable certainty.
- The court held pre-contract expenditures were not recoverable because they were not caused by reliance on the Dempsey contract.
- The court held expenses of obtaining the Indiana injunction and other enforcement efforts were not recoverable because they were undertaken at the Club’s own risk after clear repudiation.
- The court held post-contract, pre-breach preparation expenditures (including the $10 payment, the architect’s fee, and potentially certain travel and promotion costs) could be recoverable as reliance damages and should have been submitted to the jury.
- The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Contract damages are limited to losses that flow naturally from the breach and are proved with reasonable certainty.
- Expected profits are not recoverable when they depend on contingencies that make them incapable of definite legal determination.
- Reliance damages may be awarded for expenditures made after contract formation and before breach, when incurred in furtherance of the contemplated performance and caused by the breach.
- Expenses incurred before contract formation are not recoverable as reliance on the later-breached contract.
- Costs incurred to compel performance after an unequivocal repudiation are not recoverable when voluntarily undertaken at the nonbreaching party’s risk.

## Conclusion

The court treated Dempsey’s denial of the contract as an anticipatory repudiation and rejected speculative lost-profit damages for the cancelled championship bout, but allowed the promoter to pursue reliance damages limited to reasonable post-contract, pre-breach preparation expenses, remanding for a jury determination and at least nominal damages.


Chicago Coliseum Club v. Dempsey, 265 Ill. App. 542 (Ill. App. Ct. 1932)