Strand Rentals Inc is in the business of renting electrical equipment for use in the entertainment industry. Some time ago, it rented an electronic switchboard to Brisford Entertainments Ltd. The rental period covered two weeks, at a price of $5000 per week. Brisford required that equipment for the purpose of staging a concert. Under the terms of the parties' rental agreement, Brisford was required to return the switchboard to Strand immediately after the concert. Nevertheless, because the initial concert turned out to be a great success, Brisford decided to hold a second show three weeks later. It therefore failed to return the switchboard as expected. Strand called repeatedly to demand the return of its property, but Brisford ignored those calls. It was only after the second concert, which earned Brisford a net profit of $50 000, that Brisford returned the switchboard to Strand. In all, Brisford had held the property for five weeks-two under contract and three after the lease had expired. Strand insists that it should be paid for that extra period. Brisford, however, has established that, during the period in question, Strand had far more switchboards than customers. Even if Brisford had performed as promised, the switchboard in question would have sat idle for the next three weeks.
As a result, Brisford insists that Strand did not really lose anything as a result of the episode and therefore should not be entitled to any relief. Is that correct? Has Brisford committed any tort? How much, if anything, is Strand entitled to receive from Brisford as damages? How would you classify those damages? In the alternative, assume that Brisford is correct in saying that Strand suffered no compensable loss. Is there any other way in which a court might calculate relief? Does it matter that Brisford earned a huge profit as a result of its actions?