CanPro, a Canadian film company, hired Alan Smithee, a relatively unknown actor, to star in a biographical movie about Pierre Trudeau. Although the contract called for payment of only $15 000 in exchange for four months of work, Smithee accepted the role because he believed that the film would be widely publicized in Canada and consequently would give his career an invaluable boost. The evidence supports that belief. In similar circumstances, other actors have seen their annual income rise to an average $100 000 in the year following the release of a major motion picture. Given the other factors involved in the movie industry, however, it is almost impossible to predict the longer-term effects of starring in a major motion picture. Unfortunately, Smithee never actually tasted glory. Just days before filming was scheduled to begin, CanPro decided to replace Smithee with another actor. The movie has now been made and Smithee is unhappy. CanPro has not given any reason for its decision to replace him, but it insists that its breach of contract did not really cause him to suffer much of a loss. Although Smithee is trained as an actor, he has spent the last four years working as a waiter for $2000 per month. Out of "generosity," CanPro is willing to pay $2000 to Smithee on the assumption that he stopped working a month before filming was scheduled to begin to rehearse his part. Would a court agree with that conclusion? Explain your answer.