create a response to the next comment:

Punitive damage awards in contract breach cases are complicated matters that need to be carefully considered based on a number of considerations. Punitive penalties are intended to punish the party who violated the agreement and discourage future violations, whereas compensatory damages seek to return the non$-$breaching party to the same position they would have been in had the breach not happened. The specifics of each case will determine whether punitive damages should be granted in breach of contract situations. Generally speaking, compared to instances involving torts, lawsuits involving breach of contract are less likely to result in punitive damages. Still, there are instances in which punitive damages might be appropriate. If there has been extreme behavior, such as fraud, malice, or deliberate misbehavior, punitive penalties may be warranted. Punitive damages may be appropriate to discourage certain behavior and safeguard the integrity of contractual agreements, for instance, if one party intentionally uses deceptive tactics or makes false statements to persuade the other party to sign the contract. The degree of damage the breach causes is another factor to take into account. To fairly compensate the non$-$breaching party and prevent future wrongdoing, punitive penalties may be required if the breach causes the non$-$breaching party serious financial or reputational injury. But it's crucial to find a balance between proportionality and fairness and the necessity for prevention. Punitive damages shouldn't be given carelessly or unjustly since this could result in unjust outcomes and prevent parties from signing contracts because they fear facing severe penalties. Overall, the application of punitive damages should be carefully considered in light of the principles of fairness, proportionality, and the overall aims of contract law.