1. The school board argues it cannot anticipate the amount of damages if the child does not attend school for the year. Is that accurate? Wouldn’t it be the cost of tuition?
2. The court held that the duty to mitigate does not apply here because the damages have already been established. If the court did entertain mitigation for cases like this, the school here would not have received anything because they were over-enrolled for that year. Do you think that motivated the court to rule the way it did?
3. Do you think the school got a windfall here? Explain.

  • CreatedSeptember 23, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question