## Facts

- Paul Rombola, an experienced horse trainer, and Peter Cosindas, the owner of “Margy Sampson,” entered a written contract for Rombola to train, maintain, and race the horse from November 8, 1962 to December 1, 1963.
- Rombola agreed to pay all expenses and receive 75% of gross purses; Cosindas would receive 25%.
- During the contract period, Rombola maintained and trained the horse through the winter and entered it in 25 races in spring and summer 1963; the horse won 10 races and earned purse money in 20 of 25 races, totaling about \$12,000.
- For the fall 1963 Suffolk Downs meet, Rombola entered the horse in six stake races scheduled within the remaining contract term.
- On October 25, 1963, before the meet began, Cosindas took possession of the horse without Rombola’s consent, preventing Rombola from racing it; the horse did not race again before the contract ended.
- Rombola sued for breach of contract, seeking damages for his claimed lost prospective profits (his 75% share of what the horse likely would have earned in the six stake races).

## Issues

1. Whether a court may direct a verdict for the defendant solely on the plaintiff’s opening statement in a breach of contract action seeking lost prospective profits.
2. Whether prospective winnings from planned racehorse stake races are too speculative, as a matter of law, to permit recovery beyond nominal damages.

## Decision

- The directed verdict for the defendant was reversed, and the case was remanded for trial.
- The opening statement described a valid contract, the plaintiff’s performance and readiness to continue, and the defendant’s interference preventing performance, which stated a prima facie breach entitling the plaintiff to at least nominal damages.
- The plaintiff’s lost-profit claim was not barred as a matter of law; given the horse’s earnings history and the objective structure of stake purses, the plaintiff should be allowed to present evidence to prove damages with reasonable certainty.

## Legal Principles

- Proof of breach of contract entitles the nonbreaching party to at least nominal damages, even if substantial damages are uncertain.
- Lost profits are recoverable if proved with reasonable certainty; they need not be shown with mathematical precision.
- A court should not treat an entire category of profits as legally incapable of proof where past performance, objective data, and qualified testimony could support a rational estimate.
- Uncertainty attributable to the nature of the activity does not automatically defeat recovery when the claim is grounded in an established record of performance over a defined period.

## Conclusion

The court held that the plaintiff’s opening statement was sufficient to proceed on breach and nominal damages and that claimed lost profits from missed stake races could be proven with reasonable certainty using the horse’s demonstrated earnings and related evidence, making a directed verdict improper.


Rombola v. Cosindas, 351 Mass. 382, 220 N.E.2d 919 (Mass. 1966)