## Facts

- C.I.C. Corporation (CIC) placed four vending machines at Ragtime, Inc.’s tavern under a written agreement for a five-year term with revenue sharing.
- A dispute arose regarding payments and revenue sharing.
- CIC removed its machines from Ragtime’s premises and claimed Ragtime’s conduct breached the agreement.
- CIC sought about $41,000, asserting it represented lost revenues for the remaining 59 months of the contract term.
- Ragtime argued CIC failed to mitigate damages because the machines were movable and could have been placed at other locations.

## Issues

1. Whether CIC, as the non-breaching party, had a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to redeploy its vending machines after the alleged breach.
2. Whether the jury was properly instructed that CIC’s recoverable damages could be reduced based on avoidable loss through reasonable mitigation.
3. Whether the $1 nominal damages verdict required a new trial on damages.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment.
- The court held CIC had a duty to mitigate its contract damages because the machines were redeployable and mitigation was feasible.
- The court upheld the mitigation instruction permitting the jury to consider what CIC reasonably could and should have done to reduce its losses.
- The court affirmed the $1 verdict and the denial of CIC’s motion for a new trial on damages, finding the verdict supportable on the record.

## Legal Principles

- A non-breaching party may not recover contract damages for losses it could have avoided through reasonable efforts; avoidable loss limits the damage award.
- Failure to mitigate is a limitation on recoverable damages, not a bar to liability.
- Where equipment is movable and can be productively re-used, the injured party must make reasonable efforts to redeploy it rather than claim the full stream of expected profits from the breached location.
- A nominal damages award may be sustained when the factfinder concludes the plaintiff did not prove compensable loss after accounting for loss that reasonable mitigation would have avoided.

## Conclusion

The court applied the mitigation doctrine to a vending-machine revenue-sharing contract, holding that CIC was required to make reasonable efforts to relocate its machines to reduce lost-profit damages; the jury’s nominal award and the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial on damages were affirmed.


C.I.C. Corp. v. Ragtime, Inc., 726 A.2d 316 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999)