## Facts

- The Whites bought a Wisconsin home that lacked its own water supply; the neighboring Benkowskis owned a well already piped to the Whites’ house.
- The parties executed a written agreement under which the Benkowskis would supply water for ten years (subject to early termination upon specified events), and the Whites would pay $3 per month plus one-half of future repair and maintenance costs.
- In connection with the arrangement, the Whites paid $400 for the purchase and installation of a new pump and an additional tank to increase well capacity.
- After the neighbors’ relationship deteriorated, the Benkowskis intermittently shut off water to the Whites’ home on multiple dates in 1964 for short periods.
- The Whites presented evidence of resulting inconvenience, including bathroom odor due to lack of water and needing to take children elsewhere for bathing.
- The Benkowskis asserted the shutoffs were to address sand issues in the pipes or to curb what they viewed as excessive water usage.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly reduced the jury’s compensatory damages award as merely nominal where evidence showed inconvenience from interrupted water service.
2. Whether punitive damages may be awarded for a malicious breach of contract when no independent tort claim was tried.

## Decision

- The court reinstated the jury’s $10 compensatory damages award, holding it reflected actual damages supported by evidence of inconvenience.
- The court held punitive damages are not recoverable for breach of contract absent an independent tort and therefore affirmed the denial of punitive damages.
- The judgment was modified to award $10 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Actual damages in contract are not limited to strictly pecuniary loss; proven inconvenience that naturally and directly results from the breach may be compensable.
- A plaintiff need not prove contract damages with mathematical precision; evidence must supply a reasonable basis for the factfinder to estimate an amount.
- A modest damages award may still be “actual” rather than nominal if grounded in an actual injury.
- Punitive damages are unavailable for a simple breach of contract, even if malicious, unless the defendant’s conduct constitutes an independent, accompanying tort.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence-based inconvenience from interrupted performance can support a small but actual compensatory award in contract, but punitive damages remain unavailable when the action is tried solely as a breach of contract without an independent tort.


White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis. 2d 285, 155 N.W.2d 74 (Wis. 1967)