The rental value of a cotton gin is the measure of damages for breach of contract to furnish new machinery which prevents the operation of the gin for a whole season, but anticipated profits cannot be recovered ; Standard Supply Co. v. Carter, 81 S. C. 181, 62 S. E. 150, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 155. Where a builder fails to build an elevator to do its intended work in an office building, he is not liable to the owner of the building for loss of rents during the time of unsatisfac tory service ; Winslow Elevator & Machine Co. v. Hoffman, 107 Md. 621, 69 Atl. 394, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130.
Breach of contract to make a loan on a demand note secured by mortgage, to take up an existing lien, renders the lender liable for damages caused by foreclosure of the lat ter, although ordinarily there is no recovery for breach of contract to make a demand loan ; Doushkess v. Brewing Co., 20 App. Div. 375, 47 N. Y. Supp. 312 ; and where a reasonable sum was stipulated for as liqui dated damages for the breach of agreement to loan money, such stipulation will be en forced ; Peekskill, S. C. & M. R. Co. v. Vil lage of Peekskill, 21 App. Div. 94, 47 N. Y. Supp. 305. The compensation is not neces sarily for actual loss or expense. In many cases there may be a recovery for the amount of expenditure proper to be made and charged where the service was, in fact, gratuitous, as in the case of services of phy sicians and nurses which cost the plaintiff nothing, and for which he is held entitled to recover upon the ground that he recovers not for their cost but for their value ; Brosnan v. Sweetser, 127 Ind. 1, 26 N. E. 555 ; Den ver & R. G. R. Co. v. Lorentzen, 79 Fed. 291, 24 C. C. A. 592 ; contra., Peppercorn v. City of Black River Falls, 89 Wis. 38, 61 N. W. 79, 46 Am. St. Rep. 818, where it was held that the recovery could only be for expense incur red.
The other essential requisite is that the amount is determined, not by the actual loss, but only that which is the natural result of th'e act complained of, or as its consequence may be presumed to have been in contempla tion of the parties. This rule was establish ed by the leading case of Hadley v. Baxen dale, 9 Exch. 341; 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 502 ; 8 id. 405 (for a full discussion of that case see 16 L. Q. Rev. 175), which was a suit against a carrier.
Remote, contingent, or speculative dam ages will not be allowed, but only such as naturally flow from the breach of the con tract ; Cahn v. Telegraph Co., 46 Fed. 40.
Those which are the natural, but not the necessary, consequences of the act complain ed of ; Roberts v. Graham, 6 Wall. (U. S.)
578, 18 L. Ed. 791; St. Louis Police Relief, etc., v. Strode, 103 Mo. App. 694, 77 S. W. 1091; Carroll v. Caine, 27 Wash. 406, 67 Pac. 993.
The principle of Hadley v. Baxendale, su pra, however, is held to cover damages re sulting from the failure of the plaintiff to comply with other contracts, made upon the faith of his contract with the defendant, for the breach of which he sues, where the fact of his having made such other contracts was known to the defendant ; 20 Q. B. D. 86. But it is held that the mere fact of such con sequences being communicated to the other party to a contract, without showing that he was told that he would be answerable for them and consented to undertake such a lia bility, will not increase the damages for breach by such other party. The knowledge must be brought home to the party sought to be charged, under such circumstances that he must know that the person he contracts with reasonably believes that he accepts the contract with the special condition attached to it. Mere notice to a seller of some interest or probable action of the buyer is not enough necessarily and as matter of law to charge the seller with special damage on that ac count if he fails to deliver the goods; Globe Refining Co. v. L. Cotton Oil Co., 190 Ti. S. 540, 23 Sup. Ct. 754, 47 L. Ed. 1171, where it was said that "the suggestion thrown out by Bramwell, B., in Gee v. Lancashire & York shire Ry. Co., 6 H. & N. 211, that perhaps notice after the contract was made and be fore breach, would be enough, is not accept ed by the latter decision. * * * The con sequences must be contemplated at the time of the making of the contract." Anticipated profits are, as a general rule, too speculative and remote• to be recovered as damages ; Howard v. Mfg. Co., 139 U. S. 199, 11 Sup.
Ct. 500, 35 L. Ed. 147 ; Cincinnati Siemens Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Western Siemens-Lundgren Co., 152 U. S. 200, 14 Sup. Ct. 523, 38 L. Ed. 411; Simmer v. City of St. Paul, 23 Minn. 408 ; Griffin v. Colver, 16 N. Y. 489, 69 Am. Dec. 718 ; but by way of exception, loss of profits from the interrup tion of an established business may be re covered, though only if the actual loss is shown with reasonable certainty ; Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman, 111 Fed. 96, 49 C. C. A. 244 ; Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252, 2 N. W. 847 ; Chapman v. Kirby, 49 Ill. 211; Shafer v. Wilson, 44 Md. 268 ; 6 Bing. N. C. 212.