## Facts

- John D. and Elaine Doner orally agreed to buy a “trio” of ostrich chicks from Chester and Jan Snapp for $9,000; in the trade, a trio meant two hens and one male.
- As the chicks matured, the Doners discovered the birds were two males and one hen.
- The parties discussed a possible exchange to correct the sex imbalance, but no agreement was reached.
- In 1992, the Doners traded both males: one for a male of equal value, and the other for two female chicks; the Doners treated the trades as economically equivalent exchanges.
- The Doners sought compensatory damages and lost profits based on anticipated breeding output and expected future value in the ostrich-breeding market.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Snapps on the ground that the Doners failed to show recoverable damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the buyers produced sufficient evidence of actual damages (difference in value and/or consequential damages) from receiving nonconforming goods to survive summary judgment.
2. Whether claimed lost profits from a speculative breeding venture were supported by competent evidence showing reasonable certainty.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the Snapps.
- The court held the Doners failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on damages.
- The court found no competent evidence of a difference in value between the birds as delivered and as promised at the relevant times.
- The court held the claimed lost profits were speculative and not proven with reasonable certainty.

## Legal Principles

- Damages are an essential element of a breach-of-contract claim; proof of breach without provable loss does not permit recovery.
- For accepted nonconforming goods, the buyer must prove the difference between the value of the goods as accepted and as warranted, plus any consequential damages that are properly supported.
- Cover or substitute transactions may inform the damages analysis; exchanges at equivalent value may negate proof of benefit-of-the-bargain loss.
- Lost profits are recoverable only when proven with reasonable certainty; projections based on uncertain future production, volatile markets, or unsupported expectations are insufficient at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the sellers because the buyers’ evidence showed no measurable difference-in-value loss and did not establish lost profits with reasonable certainty, leaving no triable issue on damages.


Doner v. Snapp, 98 Ohio App. 3d 597 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)