Cited by

To prove a breach of contract, LaRue must show “the existence of the contract, its breach and the resulting damages.”

To prevail on his contract claim, Weber must prove “existence of [a] contract, its breach and the resulting damages.”

¶13 Hernandez’s breach of contract claim required “the existence of [a] contract, its breach and the resulting damages.” Graham v. Asbury, 4 HERNANDEZ v. OLD TOWN Decision of the Court

¶15 To succeed on a breach of contract action, the plaintiff must prove three elements: “the existence of the contract, its breach and the resulting damages.” Thomas v. Montelucia Villas, LLC, ¶ 16 (2013) ().

See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347(a)-(b) (1981) (providing that an injured party has a right to damages for losses “caused” by the breach); (breaching party is liable for any damages sustained “as a result” of the breach); N. Ariz. Gas Serv., Inc. v. Petrolane Transp., Inc., Thunderbird Metallurgical, Inc. v. Ariz. Testing Lab’ys., (damages recoverable in a contract action are those “p

(identifying the elements of a claim for breach of contract).

“To bring an action for the breach of [a] contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of [a] contract, its breach and the resulting damages.”

We review de novo issues of contract interpretation, looking to the plain meaning of the words in the context of 3 See, (noting that a party claiming breach of contract must prove the existence of a contract, breach, and damages).

Compare Holt, 110 Ariz. at 278 (to recover on an open account, the plaintiff must meet its burden to prove “the correctness of the account and each item thereof”), (“To bring an action for the breach of the contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of the contract, its breach and the resulting damages.”).

However, even assuming this to be true, the plaintiff in a breach of contract action has the burden of proving “the existence of a contract, its breach and resulting damages.” (citing Clark v. Compania Ganadera de Cananea, S.A., ).

L.L.C., ¶ 16 (2013) (“To bring an action for the breach of the contract, the [injured party] has the burden of proving the existence of the contract, its breach and the resulting damages.”) (emphasis 5 NORTH et al. v. VPS et al. Decision of the Court added) (), or (2) grant VPS permission to enter the school premises to provide security services, thereby vitiating the trespass claim, see Barry v. S. Pac.

¶26 “‘To bring an action for the breach of the contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of the contract, its [material] breach and the resulting damages.’” Thomas v. Montelucia Villas, LLC, ¶ 16 (2015) ().

(identifying the elements of a breach-of-eontract claim as: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) breach; and (3) resulting damages).

1987) (breach of contract arises when party materially fails to perform duty imposed by agreement (citation omitted)); (party is liable for breach of contract when it fails to keep agreement).

“To bring an action for the breach of the contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of the contract, its breach and the resulting damages.”

citing Clark v. Compania Ganadera de Cananea, S.A.

Berthot v. Security Pac.

(When a party fails to keep the agreements, he is liable for damages for his failure to perform.).

Reliance is justified when it is reasonable, but is not justified when knowledge to the contrary exists, LyphoMed

permits and failure to notice the error for two years did not amount to wrongful conduct which would give rise to equitable estoppel); Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , (county’s failure to immediately enforce the terms of a land sale contract upon the purchaser’s breach did not equitably estop it from later suing the purchaser); , (state was not estopped from seeking overpayment of salary to an employee because more than one year delay in suing was not intentional and did not con